Hi Dirk,
I agree. It will take some efforts to do the content merge.
Regards
Sri
On 1/14/13 6:12 AM, dirk.von-h...@telekom.de dirk.von-h...@telekom.de
wrote:
Hi Sri and all,
Although it's too late (sorry for that) I agree with you and others who
commented similarly that it's impossible (for
Hi Sri and all,
Although it's too late (sorry for that) I agree with you and others who
commented similarly that it's impossible (for me) to judge - both proposals and
analysis approaches have their pros and cons and are quite even in quality of
writing. If I only knew how to split and merge
Hi all,
As for the current discussion on adopting a current practices and gap
analysis document,
I express my support to [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03. It seems to me
that it is
a better base document for the group.
Cheers,
Rui Costa
|-Original Message-
|From:
Hi all,
Sorry for my last minute comment. In comparing the two documents, [1]
gives a detailed analysis of 3GPP technologies, but may be too much
focused on one SDO. [2] analyzes WiFi networks as well as 3GPP, which
provides somewhat a good balance for an IETF document by mentioning
multiple
I've reviewed both the documents and here is my feedback.
1. Both the documents are well written and many points are valid and
equally many points are also debatable, but is not a blocker for the draft
adoption.
3. Given the efforts put in by the Authors of both the documents, I'd hate
to pick
Hi all
I prefer [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 more than
the first one.
Best Regards,
Wei
From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet
Sarikaya
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:04 AM
To: Seok-Joo Koh
Cc: Julien Laganier;
Hello folks,
I support document [2] and some beneficial contents of [1], I think, can be
merged to [2]
Thank you.
BRs,
Heeyoung JUNG
-Original Message-
From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:25 AM
To:
Dear all,
I went through the documents and I found that [2] provides a very clear and
comprehensive description of current practices and gap analysis.
Hence, I Support WG adoption for document [2]
draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.
Best wishes
Philippe
-Message d'origine-
Dear all,
After going through the 2 documents, my opinion is that [1] has an
improved technical completeness (e.g. number of mobility protocols
considered for best practices description, and clear identification of
respective limitations) against that of ]2}. It also seems to have a
more
Dear all,
As I already mentioned during previous email discussions, I think that
draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [1], describes well several
mobility protocols considered for gap analysis and it describes a clear
identification of their limitations!
Therefore I am in favour of adopting this
Hi all,
I support [1] (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03) as WG document adoption. It
has specified current practices well in details, analyzing gaps and
limitations. I hope we'll able to progress the rest of DMM items.
Regards,
Seil
-Original Message-
From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org
Dear all,
I support [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01, which provides
clear current practices of IP mobility protocols and gap analysis.
Cheers.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Jouni Korhonen jouni...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our
Hi Jouni Julien,
|[1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02
|[2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
After going through the two drafts, I think that [2] is in much better shape as
it stands now to form the _basis_ for a WG document, as it includes a gap
analysis that is more sober,
Happy a new year to everyone !
[2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 seems to be more faithful to
the original motivations to DMM.
In addition, both of the two documents are worthwhile to consider in the future
works on DMM.
Accordingly, it is suggested to use [2]
Folks,
Just a reminder that ~one more week time to voice your preference!
- Jouni
On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen jouni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano c...@it.uc3m.es
wrote:
Dear chairs,
We have been working on an update
On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano c...@it.uc3m.es
wrote:
Dear chairs,
We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis,
addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last
meeting. Main changes from -02 are:
- New section on
Folks,
We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that.
The next step is to select a current practices and gap analysis document to
serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on
this topic to choose from:
[1]
Dear chairs,
We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis,
addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last
meeting. Main changes from -02 are:
- New section on 3GPP mobility.
- New section on functional analysis.
- New section on combined solution
18 matches
Mail list logo
