Hi Behcet, Shouldn't the WG first discuss these IDs, just as draft-schmidt-* has been discussed several times and presented (most recently at IETF84)?
Specifically, I do not understand your comment below: "We did have, apart from draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast, several other multicast handover solution drafts such as:.." IMO, each ID should be discussed on its own and the WG should decide about the next steps. Thanks. -Rajeev Hi all, There is an issue that we missed in Monday Multimob session that I would like to bring to attention: We did have, apart from draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast, several other multicast handover solution drafts such as: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vonhugo-multimob-cxtp-extension-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 These are the documents that are still active. There could be others that are no longer active. If we decide to accept more than one handover solution then we probably need to consider all of them for possible WG adoption. What do you think? Regards, Behcet
_______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
