Hi,
I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts
after they had successfully passed WG last call.
Am I mistaken, Brian?
Cheers,
Thomas
On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi all,
Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus
opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently.
Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list.
ISSUE:
Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only
worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224.
However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for
source mobility starting with Section 4.3.
Question:
Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES,
if you do not support it then say NO.
We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The
deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014.
If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at
MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to IESG.
Regards,
Behcet
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
