Re: comments on draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02

Hi Pierrick, all,

  |IMHO, if we should keep only one PS, it would be PS#2 :-)

How about combining PS1 and PS2?


  |I agree that conditional mobility support, depending on application
  |capability, is a key requirement. However, I think that this
  |requirement is orthogonal to the distribution of mobility management
  |functions; actually, we may have the same requirement with centralized
  |mobility management, right?

You are right, it is orthogonal.


  | This is not really a DMM issue

Indeed, but if we're to design a modern mobility management solution then it should be considered from the beginning, right?


Best Regards,

Kostas