Re: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-05

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote:
>     o Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes:
>       define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to select
>       either a care-of address or a home address depending on an
>       application' mobility needs. In order to enable this
>
> To me it is there..
>
>       functionality, the network-side control functions and other
>       networking nodes must also be able to exchange appropriate
>       control information, as well as to the mobile nodes and their
>       applications.
>
> And again here.
>
> If apps or mobile node need to be able to select appropriate address I find
> it ok to describe it.. call it api or not in the charter.
>
> - Jouni
>

Not to me.

I don't see any API. The API RFC 5014 was done in 6man. mif WG used to
do API. mif WG had clear items on API in its charter.






Regards,

Behcet
>
>
>
> 6/29/2016, 1:12 PM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Lo and behold your cry for intended status change will happen!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Lo I just now checked it.
>> I could not see any API development in dmm charter.
>>
>> Aren't you responsible for this?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>>
>>> Actually, this came up earlier because 1) the I-D makes a normative
>>> referecence to an informational RFC5014 and 2) API documents are
>>> informational in general. It just did not make to the latest revision..
>>>
>>
>>
>>> - JOuni
>>>
>>>
>>> 6/29/2016, 9:07 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I quickly looked at this draft.
>>>> It seems like the authors or Danny changed "sustained IP address" to
>>>> "session lasting IP address". It sounds a bit better.
>>>> However, my concerns about sustained IP address remain the same on the
>>>> session lasting IP address because semantically they mean the same
>>>> thing, the session lasting is just a more flashy name.
>>>>
>>>> I really don't understand how in the world this draft became a WG
>>>> draft in the first place. Given that, my suggestion is to finish up
>>>> this work by changing it to Informational. I don't believe it is
>>>> implementable.
>>>>
>>>> This draft is also not the type of draft dmm should be working on, dmm
>>>> I think is a continuation of MIP related mobility WGs and this draft
>>>> has nothing to do with this.
>>>>
>>>> Make it Informational, folks.
>>>>
>>>> Behcet
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>
>>>
>