Hi Jouni, On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > Behcet, > > 12/2/2015, 11:02 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: >> >> 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. > > > Sorry for my improper wording regarding which part of the MCoA I meant. I > don't see how draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14 would handle the case of > registration when the Proxy-CoAs are from the same MAG.
I wonder why would that be needed? MN doesn't need it. So this draft seems to be addressing a non-problem. Regards, Behcet > The netext draft > specifically states Proxy-CoAs are from different MAGs. > > But it was a good thing you brought this up. The two I-Ds need to be in > sync. > >> >> BTW there was an issue in WG adoption call in IETF 93 in Yokohama. The > > > IETF 94 I presume.. AFAIR we did not ask for adoption in IETF 93. > >> 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. > > > Obviously you are right here but I cannot really comment on this what > happened in Yokohama since I was not on site or not even participating > remotely. > > Anyway, all adoption calls are confirmed on the mailing list and the "sense > of the room" during the meeting merely serves as informative quidance for > chairs. > > - Jouni > > >> >> 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
