Jouni, I reply here, but I will write separate emails.
Le 24/10/2014 19:51, Jouni a écrit :
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.
Jouni - there are some particular aspects in which these teams work.
There are no emails to look at: everything seems to be happening on the
phone? Are the audiologs available?
Audioconferences: I tried to participate to a doodle but the hours are
not clear about the time region.
It looks like a change in the traditional way work is being done here.
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.
Let's hope for the best.
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.
I will reply separately about this but for now I can say that I am a bit
surprised by your statement.
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.
Ok.
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?
To join I need to use the right tools and Doodle in particular is not
very appropriate (what time zone is that?).
The minutes of the call are ok, and needed, and archived emails could
also help.
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.
Should I join each one of the three teams? That would be much effort
necessary.
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.
The Charter currently does not say NEMO.
Alex
- 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
