Re: rechartering draft comments
Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <533558DA.9020503__9670.99427148259$1396005121$gmane$org@gmail.com> |
Le 27/03/2014 22:40, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : > > > On 3/27/14 2:26 PM, "Jouni Korhonen" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> You know that it just happens to be the only RFC even attempting >> to explain how LMAs are selected dynamically. If the reference here >> is contentious, I am happy to remore it.. just give me alternative >> text. > > > I agree. RFC6097 and RFC6463 are relevant to the above work item. I am not sure where these two RFCs appeared from, I dont remember seeing any discussion about them. Clarification please? I suppose work on anchor selection would need a form of problem statement - is there a problem statement in the current drafts? > It is possible the WG may (most likely) adopt newer approaches for > gateway selection, but a reference to the prior work is very much > relevant. It is a very relevant reference. We do want to leverage > work where possible. I'm fine with this. I agree with these affirmations. Alex > > > > Regards Sri > > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list > [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > >