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 draft as a WG draft!
The number of the discussed mobility protocols can be extended and as I already mentioned in previous emails I will be happy to help with this extension.
Best regards,
Georgios
>
>
> On 12/19/2012 08:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> > 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] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02
> > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
> >
> > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for
> the WG document.
> >
> > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We
> would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your
> selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active
> WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other.
> >
> > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a
> longer three week call now due the holiday season in between.
> >
> > - Jouni & Julien
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmm mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.