Re: [DMM] FPSM work team draft

Dear Marco and WT, Thanks for all the work! IMO the draft is quite clearly written and covers many details on messages and attributes for node configuration according to policies - I didn't find missing ones so far ... ;-) I only have few comments / nits detected so far: P.3: These requirement

Re: [DMM] WG adoption for draft-yegin-ondemand-mobility-03

Dear Alper and co-authors, Thanks for your work! IMO the draft is clearly written and ready for adoption though some questions and comments came to my mind: In the Intro Mobile IP is referenced to both client and Proxy MIP In the context of Mobile IP [RFC5563][RFC6275][RFC5213][RFC5944], - but in

Re: [DMM] WG adoption for draft-yegin-ondemand-mobility-03

Hi Alper, Ok, thanks! Regarding More than one of these flags may be set on the same socket. In that case, an IP address compliant with any one of them shall be selected. TBD: Disallow this case? Since here we have requirements instead of preferences unavailability of the required address ty

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02

Dear co-chairs, all, I join early adopters of the draft and agree that it should become WG document. To the co-authors I propose to check whether all what I detected as nits/typos really are ones: p.3: multihomed achitecture => multihomed architecture using GRE as mobile tuneling => using G

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02

Hi Pierrick, Thank you for the clarification! May I recommend then to exchange also the multiple occurrences of RG in the draft text by - why not MAG? Your approach which I think of as mainly opting towards future mobility management systems with multiple connections (e.g. backhauling of vehicu

Re: [DMM] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-01.txt

Dear Seil, Finally I remembered that I promised a review. I am sorry for the delay! Overall I think the draft is well written and useful. Thanks! Some nits have been detected already by Xuan … in addition: ‘seperated’ should be replaced by ‘separated’ and ‘and where as’ by simply ‘whereas’. I woul

Re: [DMM] Distributed Mobility Anchoring - Draft Review Request

Dear all, my comments from review on v03 of the draft have all been considered in v06 (and maybe before). Still very few and minor nits detected as follows: with with => with (p.4) Figures 2 => Figure 2 (p.10) Figures 3 => Figure 3 (p.10/p.11) if these packets ever reaches any of them => if these

Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt]

Dear Carlos and co-authors, all, thanks for the improvements! I think the draft is quite well written and provides a good approach to real distribution of functionalities in DMM. What might be made clearer is the difference between partially and fully DMM you have introduced. See also as mentione

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01 as DMM WG document

Hi Sri, recalling that there have been some reviews on this version -01 and the authors already replied and promised consideration in next version -02 before London I would recommend to have this call on the new -02 version. Would this be possible to provide soon? Other opinions? Thanks! Best Reg

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01 as DMM WG document

Hi Sri, Danny Thanks - you are right and I agree - also with what Danny said and I am in favor of adoption as WG draft! Best Regards Dirk From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 28. März 2018 16:39 To: von Hugo, Dirk ; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for adoption

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

Hi Alex, and sorry for jumping into the discussion... From my and (AFAIK) 3GPPs understanding your smartphone is a UE - sitting on the other side of RAN (gNB) - whereas a UPF normally is seen as UP entry (and exit) of the 5G core (i.e. handling all UP traffic in a true CP/UP split fashion). Any

Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03

Hi all, I agree to forward the mature and very useful document to IESG. I just detected 3 very minor nits presumably created during recent re-formatting: P.7 the MN-ID, Pref1 and MAAr1's address as a Proxy-CoA => the MN-ID, Pref1, and MAAR1's address as a Proxy-CoA 5. MAAR1 stores the BCE descr

Re: [DMM] Light review of draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-12

Dear all, searching for update on this (meanwhile expired) draft I only found the 103 minutes quoting Charlie with " We should get a solid architectural and informational yang that should be applicable." I also read Carlos' comment on more general applicability and wonder whether the topic of C

Re: [DMM] WG Call for adoption: draft-chan-dmm-requirements-02

Dear all, I am also in favour of WG adoption of the draft since it discusses very detailed motivation, problems, and requirements of DMM approach. To the authors: I propose to take in to consideration correction of some very minor nits as follows in the next version: Page 6: In Fig. 1 beside LM

Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document

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 ...

Re: [DMM] DMM framework

Dear Marco, all, I think the idea of describing mobility management functions in a generic and modular way can help to allow for fair comparison of different existing approaches and new extensions towards fulfillment of DMM requirements. As your draft shows also routing-protocol based approache

Re: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update

Thanks Pierrick for the pointer! And FWIW also Marcos draft-liebsch-dmm-framework-03 addresses deployment and architecture aspects for evaluating various approaches BR Dirk -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of pierrick.se...@orange.com Sent: Mittwoch, 23.