Re: re-charter text updated

"Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.nemo
Message-ID <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C059B6608__30392.3779669733$1395115632$gmane$org@SAM.InterDigital.com>
Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:49 PM
> To: Jouni Korhonen; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] re-charter text updated
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/17/14 7:20 PM, "Jouni Korhonen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >Folks,
> >
> >Triggered by the question from Behcet, we should come up with the
> >milestones. Few proposals:
> >
> >o The deployment models and scenarios I-D is obvious.
> >o Anchor selection I-D is obvious. Could we also bundle
> >  the re-anchoring solution into this one or should it be
> >  a different I-D?
> 
> 
> IMO, these are two different topics and can be kept as separate work
items.
> 
> Anchor selection is tied to access network, request path, policy,
handovers
> and load on the target elements. The entity using the gateway
selection can
> be a end point, a network node or a policy system. The bulk of the
work is
> around laying out the considerations for gateway selection and
specifying
> the logic. The selection to most part is about the assigning a gateway
during
> initial session establishment.
> 
> Session Re-anchoring is about moving a session state between gateways,
> after the session got established. It has impact on the forwarding
plane and
> is more about a routing problem. But, you may argue this is also
touching
> the aspect of gateway (re)-selection at a failure point. In this sense
there is
> some relation there, but it depends on how the re-anchoring solution
is
> specified.
> 
> IMO, its better to track them as separate work items.

[JCZ] +1

> 
> 
> >o Mobility state exposing I-D. This would communication
> >  between the end host and the network. Maybe also covering
> >  the missing parts within the end host.. Are we OK with one
> >  I-D or how people want to see this?
> 
> 
> Single ID is fine.

[JCZ] Single ID is fine indeed. However, we still need to assess whether
this will be a DMM or a MIF ID.

Regards,

Juan Carlos

> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.