Folks,
Let's change gears.
We'd like to propose draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02 for WG adoption.
This draft falls under the following deliverable:
Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes:
define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to select
Hi Jouni,
We cannot have an official approval of the documents,
but what we can do is:
- check the WG to see if they are willing to accept a document, based on the
assumption that the new charter would be approved
- if the WG is OK, then when the charter is approved, we can double check on
the
Lets get the charter approved first.
- jouni
7/17/2014 7:42 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
We cannot have an official approval of the documents,
but what we can do is:
- check the WG to see if they are willing to accept a document, based on the
assumption that the new charter would be
I'm in favor of this approach. This was my suggestion as well in the past
(when we presented prefix coloring spec) to move forward some documents.
But, those should be documents which are considered common across multiple
solution approaches. The issue seems to be charter approval.
Sri
On
On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
I'm in favor of this approach. This was my suggestion as well in the past
(when we presented prefix coloring spec) to move forward some documents.
But, those should be documents which are considered common across multiple
solution
Hi Alper,
draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-
00.txt does not use anchoring, I don't know how many times I should tell?
It simply extends vEPC, so it should be classified wherever vEPC is
classified, and I don't care where.
Regards,
Behcet
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Alper Yegin
The list is still missing draft-korhonen-dmm-local-prefix-01.
- Jouni
7/17/2014 10:45 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
I'm in favor of this approach. This was my suggestion as well in the past
(when we presented prefix coloring spec)
