Hello all, I saw the support from the mailing list, plus design team's support, so the concensus has been achieved, please authors help to submit the draft with working group name.
thanks a lot -Hui 2014/1/13 Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> > I support adoption. > > Nit: "ortunneling" should split. > > Architecturally speaking, I wonder whether the semantics of querying > the obtention of a PVD based on an IP address is described. > > Let me explain why. > > We are considering locally the expression of an energy metric in a PVD. > This would for example be sent by the network to the mobile telling it > that one of its interfaces is that much energy-hungry. > > But the other way around should also be possible: a mobile may request > an interface to the network how many Joules are needed to reach a > particular IP destination. > > For that to work, there would be need for the mobile to query the > network using an IP address as key, and obtaining a particular PVD. > This is akin to the option of sending an Neighbor Solicitation for a > particular Target address. > > I had a look at the section 2.4 "PVD Identifying/Naming" but I could not > find an indication that would consider that a PVD Identifier be an IP > address. > > Alex > > > Le 07/01/2014 06:44, Hui Deng a écrit : > >> Hello all, Please express your opinion whether you would like to have >> below draft adopted as the WG document? >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-05.txt Thanks, >> -cochairs of WG >> >> >> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
