Hi Jouni,
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > As an individual contributor I support the adoption of this I-D. MCoA is a > feature that we still lack.. > Are you sure? MCoA is solved in Netext Flow Mobility draft, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14 is the latest draft. BTW there was an issue in WG adoption call in IETF 93 in Yokohama. The chair asked only those who accept. The chair unfortunately did not ask those who oppose. As you know, if the chair wishes to ask a single question then the right one is any opposes. Regards, Behcet > The document itself still needs quite a bit of work. For example, I wonder > if the caption for Figure 2 is correct. Also, Section 4.1. option fiels > descriptions are somewhat broken it seems. And so on multiple small nits > like unexpanded acronyms etc. However, these are mainly editorials. I have > no problem with the technical solution. > > - Jouni > > > > 11/25/2015, 8:22 AM, Dapeng Liu kirjoitti: >> >> Hello all, >> >> In IETF94, we initiated the call for adoption for the draft: >> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02>: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >> Seems have got sufficient support during the meeting. We'd like to >> confirm the call for adoption in the mailing list for 2 weeks. >> Please send your opinion and comments to the list before December 9. >> >> >> Thanks, >> ------ >> Best Regards, >> Dapeng&Jouni >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------ >> Best Regards, >> Dapeng Liu >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
