Re: re-charter text updated

On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Alper Yegin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Jouni,
> 
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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?
>>>> o ..
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> There's the API aspect on the terminal (one I-D),
>>> and there is the MN-network interface ones (e.g., extending RA, DHCP, etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> So you want an API document? I have some reservations documenting
>> an APIs as-is. Could this be an extension to RFC5014? I'd see this
>> approach feasible since there are even (partial) implementations of
>> the RFC5014 in popular operating systems.
>> 
> 
> Yes, we are talking about extensions to source address selection (RFC 5014).

Ack.

> 
> 
>> Then the subsequent thing. Each MN-NW interface would be one document,
>> if I understand the above comment correctly? Which one(s) to do first?
>> ND or/and DHCP?
>> 
> 
> Yes. Both.

Ack. Since we are coming up with I-D numbers, any preference
on the protocols that we patch..?

- Jouni


> 
> Alper
> 
> 
> 
>> - JOuni
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Alper
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> - Jouni
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have updated the charter draft text slightly:
>>>>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Basically:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Added Sri's comment on PMIPv6 maintenance.
>>>>> Added Alper's comment of location of mobility functions.
>>>>> Added links to other IETF WGs on possible mobility enabling technologies.
>>>>> Added a comment that virtualised network functions are in scope.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>> 
>> 
>