Ok.. once more. On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 24/10/2014 18:17, Brian Haberman a écrit : >> Alex (and others), >> >> On 10/24/14 11:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >>> But under no circumstances should they become unaccountable with >>> respect to the WG at large. >> >> Please (re-)read what I posted about these teams a little while ago. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01627.html > > Thank you for the pointer, I've read and re-read it at the time. Good. > It increased my confidence to re-think again the same thing: we dont know > whether these are Design Teams RFC2418, or something else. Does it matter? We have 4 chartered work items. Chairs decided to delegate the work and called for volunteers to take a lead for running facilitator duties on each work item. If you want to call them design teams, you are free to do so. Chairs decided to call them as working team since construction of those is less formal than typically with design teams. > I dont know what to expect as output. Maybe re-re-read the pointed mails? "The working teams, if they so manage, will produce the solution I-D(s). These documents will be equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though." I personally hope, in a chair role, that working teams will produce solution I-Ds with a wide support behind each of them. > I dont know what does this mean to the future of Mobile IP? To be seen. Is that an issue? DMM WG still has the maintenance role of MIP. The charter allows us to abandon MIP as a DMM solution if the WG so decides or the WG can decide to build everything on top of MIP. You are free to steer the public opinion & solution space by contributing. The whole process is contribution driven. > Are the 3 teams going to produce a competitor to Mobile IP? Is Mobile IP > becoming Historic? I have no idea. Why not joining to some of those working team calls or read the call minutes and find out? By participating and contributing you can steer the fate of MIP. For contribution you have two basic approaches: 1) write your own I-D (possibly co-authored with other people) or 2) join working teams, drive your ideas there and contribute to their possible output I-Ds. > Is Mobile IP Network Mobility taken into account in these teams? If you have concerns on the lack of visibility of nemo, join the team(s) and make sure your concerns get addressed. > Is Network Mobility considered from the start, or as an afterthought (like > NEMO after Mobile IP, PrefixDelegationPMIP after PMIP)? Up to WG and working teams to decide. NEMO is not excluded in the charter. > Are the earlier RFCs considered? I would assume so but cannot speak for other people and their plans. > My remarks to the Charter proposal got rejected in this respect. Because NEMO was already part of the existing charter text. - Jouni > > Alex > >> >> Regards, >> Brian >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
