Hi Sri, ok, thanks,
-Hui 2014-10-23 23:49 GMT+08:00 Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]>: > Probably not. Its not updating RFC4283. Its defining new type values and > certainly it can be done in a separate document. > > May be Chairs have a better view. > > > Sri > > From: Hui Deng <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 7:09 PM > To: Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]> > Cc: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-00.txt > > thanks for your explaination, > wouldn't that be RFC 4283bis? > > -Hui > > 2014-10-18 12:55 GMT+08:00 Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Hui, >> >> May be this is for Charlie and also Vijay from the ancient history. >> But, let me try. >> >> The work in MIF is more about defining network/PVD identity. In one >> sense its similar to the PLMN ID construct. Where as the MN-Id extensions >> draft is more about generating MN-Identity based on other protocol >> identifiers and other physical device identifiers. We already have >> IMSI-based identifier, which is the IMSI-NAI; We needed similar identifier >> based on MAC address for Wi-Fi, and also others identifiers based on some >> other sources. So, this is more about extending the base 4283 work with new >> types. >> >> >> Regards >> Sri >> >>
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
