Hi Alper, 在 2015年4月17日 星期五，上午5:20，Alper Yegin 写道：
> Hi Dapeng, > > On Apr 16, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dapeng Liu wrote: > > [as an individual contributor] > > > > I support the idea of “Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network > > nodes” as described in our charter. > > > > For this particular draft, after some offline discussion with the authors, > > I still have the following comments/suggestions: > > > > 1. Definition and distinction of "Fixed IP” and “Sustained IP” should be > > clear, more clarification text would be helpful. > > After rounds of online and offline discussions, I'm still not clear where the > issue is. > Could you please explain what exactly is this issue with the current > definitions? > > > > > Some information is not obvious from the draft text. More explanatory text will at least help the application developer to know whether this is useful for them. For example, as you said, HoA can either be “fixed IP” or “sustained IP”, then when HoA become "fixed IP" and when it becomes "sustained IP"? Another example/question: Is there any “fixed IP” that does not belong to the type of HoA? In section 3.1: “ The mobile host is configures a HoA from a centrally-located Home..”, do you mean “The mobile host is configured a HoA from a centrally-located Home..”? In section 3.1: “Applications running as servers at a published IP address require a Fixed IP Address.”.. Is there any real-life example for this requirement? Most server only need static public IP address instead of “fixed IP address” (providing mobility) ? In section 3.1: “Enterprise applications that connect to an enterprise network via virtual LAN require a Fixed IP Address.” can you explain the reason? > So that we can understand the residual unclarity in your mind, and we let > other people also weigh in on the matter. > > > 2. Since we are trying to define API, opinion from application developers > > or OS vendors would be helpful. We can invite some of those experts to join > > the discussion. > > Sure. > > 3. Agree with Jouni’s opinion regarding the IPR, the group need to evaluate > > it. > > I really don't understand what exact "IPR evaluation" process you are > referring to. > I'm not familiar with such a thing in IETF. > > > > > [quote from Jouni’s mail] “we need to evaluate what parts are covered by the declared IPR and whether the WG agrees to keep those in the solution”.. -- Dapeng > > Alper > > > > > > -- > > Dapeng Liu > > > > > > 在 2015年4月4日 星期六，上午8:03，Jouni Korhonen 写道： > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > This email starts a two week adoption call for the I-D > > > draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03 > > > to confirm its adoption as a DMM WG document and as a basis for the > > > technical solution. The call ends April 17th EOB PDT. > > > > > > Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the > > > IETF92 meeting we got 10 voices for the adoption and 3 against. we > > > expect at least the same amount of expressed opinions on the list. > > > > > > Notice that version -01 of this I-D had an IPR declared to it. See > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2309/ > > > > > > - Jouni & Dapeng > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
