As I said for the time being we'd like the WG to focus on completing
the existing deliverables.
Thank you.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Marco Liebsch marco.lieb...@neclab.eu wrote:
Julien,
not sure what you mean with moot. We are aware that a framework is not yet
considered by the charter. And I agree that the WG's focus should be on the
current charter items. However, the group is discussing requirements now for
1.5 years.. Looking ahead now and providing input that can help the WG to
progress does not seem to be a bad idea, IMHO. And there was some support
from the WG for having a framework.
marco
-Original Message-
From: Julien Laganier [mailto:julien.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Freitag, 29. März 2013 18:17
To: Behcet Sarikaya
Cc: Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] DMM framework vs architecture
Hi Marco,
I guess the point I made you are referring to is moot, given the timeline for
the
DMM work. At this stage we are looking at completing the gap analysis as soon
as possible and we would like all the group's energy to focus on that
critical step.
Best,
--julien
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Marco,
Sorry to interfere as this mail was not addressed to me.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Marco Liebsch
marco.lieb...@neclab.eu
wrote:
Julien, all,
let me comment to your statement in Orlando about the DMM framework
draft-liebsch-dmm-framework-analysis:
You commented that the framework assumes an architecture. Well, yes,
a 'functional' architecture as it's always done by a functional framework.
We identify functional entities and dependencies between these functions.
Dependencies are coordinated via reference points/interfaces between
these functions. Functions can be co-located to a single protocol
architecture component or distributed. Functions and reference points
may apply to a solution or may not, dependent on the targeted
protocol support and requirements.
So, the draft does not go beyond what a framework should do.
It simply supports building any protocol solution without being
dependent on the underlaying protocols.
Please see e.g. RFC 3154, which did the same for Dormant Mode Host
Alerting.
The approach applies to many other frameworks.
I am one of the co-authors of RFC 3154.
It was nostalgic for me to see your reference to this work. I believe
that IETF missed a good opportunity to make some difference in mobile
networks by staying out of developing an IP based paging protocol.
I think you are referring to Section 5 in this document.
The functional architecture in Section 5 was an obvious one, it was
built on widely agreed components and their connections.
I can not see how you are going to project it to the DMM case? In dmm
we do not yet have the same consensus on the architectural entities.
Until then it is good to keep different choices up and help build
consensus on one such thing whatever it is.
Behcet
Hope you can agree to this approach.
marco
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
