Btw, I'm not aware of any decision that the baseline protocol will be PMIP.
CMIP is equally on the table.
Sure. For the anchoring stuff that was kind of assumed to be PMIP though.
Possibly in some individual's minds.
(Btw, it's likely that this WG would come up with multiple
Doodle poll is closed.
Majority has preferred Wednesday, July 2, 4pm Central European Time. Please
mark your calendars.
Webex call details will come later…
Cheers,
Alper
On Jun 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
Hello Folks,
Pierrick will be giving a talk on Next-Generation
Folks,
New update (v9) available. I added most of the editorials from Charlie
(thanks) and the red texts from Alper.
The lot debated anchoring term (and milestone) is still there. The
milestone does not mention anymore about preserving the mobility
sessions and stuff. That would be up to
On Jun 14, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
Hello Jouni,
Thanks for incorporating some of my suggested revisions.
Follow-up below...
On 6/13/2014 3:41 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
/* What about RFC 5568 (FMIP)? */
There is the ..such as.. so I think there is no really
Hi Jouni and all,
Thanks for updating the charter, which is much tidy now.
Sorry for my late response, but I have a couple of comments below:
o With regard to enhanced mobility anchoring (mid-session anchor
switching), there were a lot of discussions in the past as you know and
eventually that
Hi Jouni and all,
With regard to the milestone, it looks getting more aggressive. If we
think of the current pace of creating the problem statement and
requirements documents, submitting the I-Ds to IESG by next March
doesn't seem to be very realistic...
Just a few other comments below:
