IP address or prefix.
H Anthony Chan
-Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu
[mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30,
2014 11:39 AM To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] AD
Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 30/01/2014 18:08, h chan a écrit
Le 31/01/2014 00:18, Jouni Korhonen a écrit :
On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
[snip]
The above seems a little clunky. Does this work for everyone?
A DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security risks, or amplify
existing security risks, that
Hi Jouni,
On 1/30/14 7:40 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
[snip]
We can change to:
REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
-Original Message-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 5:43 AM
To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 30/01/2014 20:53, h chan a écrit :
Alex,
I think the applications which work without
Hi Anthony,
On 1/29/14 1:51 PM, h chan wrote:
Brian,
The requirement is intended to include a capability of not using
network-layer mobility management, as opposed to using it by default.
I think it is sufficient to leave to the explanation (the sentences
after the first sentence) to
-Original Message-
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:br...@innovationslab.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:01 AM
To: h chan; draft-ietf-dmm-requireme...@tools.ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org; Peter
McCann
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
On 1/28/14 4:33 PM, h
chan; draft-ietf-dmm-requireme...@tools.ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org; Peter
McCann
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
On 1/28/14 4:33 PM, h chan wrote:
Regarding the following:
- What is meant by co-exist in REQ5? Does this mean that a DMM solution does
not break
...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30,
2014 2:13 AM To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] AD
Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 29/01/2014 20:45, h chan a écrit :
Alex
How about the following:
REQ2: Using and not Using Network-layer mobility support
DMM solutions MUST enable network
or prefix.
H Anthony Chan
-Original Message-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:39 AM
To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 30/01/2014 18:08, h chan a écrit :
Alex
On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
[snip]
We can change to:
REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
network deployments and end hosts without breaking
Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
All,
I have performed my AD review, as a part of the publication process, of
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements. The following issues should be addressed prior
to moving this draft to IETF Last Call. Please let me know if you have any
questions
-Original Message-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:27 PM
To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 28/01/2014 19:58, h chan a écrit :
Let me try to understand
@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation:
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 28/01/2014 02:45, h chan a écrit :
I will drop related
Regarding the following
5. Section 5: - I am a little confused by REQ2. It says that a DMM
solution should be transparent to the applications.
This remark is typically
Anthony Chan
-Original Message-
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:br...@innovationslab.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:26 AM
To: h chan; Alexandru Petrescu; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Anthony,
Does this requirement also include a way
...@tools.ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org; Peter
McCann
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
On 1/28/14 4:33 PM, h chan wrote:
Regarding the following:
- What is meant by co-exist in REQ5? Does this mean that a DMM solution does
not break an existing one? Or does it mean
To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 28/01/2014 23:33, h chan a écrit :
Let us try to include MR.
How about the following
REQ2: Network-layer mobility support when needed
DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:30 AM
To: draft-ietf-dmm-requireme...@tools.ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org; Peter McCann
Subject: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
All,
I have performed my AD review, as a part of the publication process
-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:27 PM
To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Le 28/01/2014 19:58, h chan a écrit :
Let me try to understand the concern here.
What is new
18 matches
Mail list logo
