Behcet,
On Oct 8, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Jouni, > > I am confused. > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> As announced, discussed and agreed in the Interim telco #3 Sri will take the >> lead for "Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios" >> work item. > > > When you asked us to comment on the charter, there was no deployment > models in the charter. We still have 4 work items. Deployment models is the first one of those. That still does not imply we need to have an immediate milestone for that work. > > > Next, when we look at the milestones you just sent: I am aware of what I sent.. and assume the rest of the WG as well. > > > Feb 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' as a working group > document. To be Proposed Standard. > > Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a > working group document. To be Proposed Standard. > > May 2015 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network > nodes' as a working group document(s). To be Proposed > Standard. > > Nov 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' submitted to the IESG. > To be Proposed Standard. > > Nov 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' submitted > to the IESG. To be Proposed Standard. > > Feb 2016 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network > nodes' submitted to the IESG. To be Proposed Standard. > > again there are no deployment models. The proposed charter states: "The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on the new information and knowledge gained during working on other documents listed in the initial milestones. Possible new documents and milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as outlined above." So if stuff that, _for_example_, comes out of what Sri is going to lead starts to look good and in scope of the first work item, we can add a milestone. > As you know there were a lot of concerns on the deployment models as > the deployment meant a specific protocol which does not exist in dmm > case. I am aware of concerns. I have a few myself. And I am happy someone is willing to take a shot and try to make sense of it. > > It seems like deployment models came to your mind after I sent a mail > asking about this. > BTW, that was a joke :-) Nope.. Chairs discussed that mid Sep, and Sri approached at the beginning of Oct. - Jouni > > > Regards, > > Behcet >> >> - Jouni & Dapend >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
