Re: draft charter text updates in github..

Alper,

Hmm, I already read it in a way myself I said below but that seems to be 
only me. I'll try to reformulate the text..

- Jouni

6/9/2014 4:24 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
> So, Jouni,
>
> Is this saying "Some solutions' applicability may be limited to administrative domains (i.e., not Internet-wide)", and the point is "DMM WG can accept such solutions"?
>
> Whatever the point we are trying to make, we better spell it out.
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Jouni wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> My reading of that sentence is different.
>>>
>>> To me it says "We cannot assume that the solutions we are developing would be available on all networks across the Internet".
>>
>> The highlighted text intend to say:
>> unless the mobile node is made explicitly aware (by the network)
>> of the fact that the prefix/address it got will guarantee IP session
>> continuity, the mobile node cannot assume it to remain unchanged
>> infinitely when doing handovers and such.. the prefix/address may
>> remain unchanged e.g. within a limited are e.g. as long as the
>> mobile node remains within one administrated network domain.
>>
>> - JOuni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> While I'd agree with that statement, I don't know what it really means for our solution design.
>>> Some of our solutions may not be present in a network, hence the MN cannot use them. OK…. and??
>>>
>>> In my reading, it does not say the following: "Network cannot always provide IP session continuity, hence we need to define solutions that can deal with this". (e.g., using MPTCP, or restarting flows, or some other magic, etc.).
>>> I don't think the intent of that sentence is this. And therefore, I don't think that sentence is related to "anchor re-selection".
>>>
>>> Alper
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:56 PM, John Kaippallimalil wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Alper, All:
>>>>
>>>> Towards the end of the charter, there is a paragraph that states:
>>>>      "Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es)
>>>>       and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers
>>>>       change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict
>>>>       requirement. Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP
>>>>       addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es)
>>>>       remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime,
>>>>       or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side
>>>>       in all conditions, unless these properties are specifically indicated
>>>>       to the mobile node and its applications from the network."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suppose this clarifies that the “anchor re-selection” can apply to a single session also?
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:38 AM
>>>>> To: Jouni Korhonen
>>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Jouni, DMM folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> We better clarify what "anchor re-selection" stands for.
>>>>> If it is about selecting different anchors for different IP flows, that's one
>>>>> thing.
>>>>> If it is about changing the IP anchor in the middle of an IP flow, that's
>>>>> another thing. And that other thing needs to be scoped out. A basic
>>>>> understanding of a use case would be appreciated (just an explanation for
>>>>> discussion, I'm not asking for another I-D!), and identification of various
>>>>> aspects of that scenario which translate to work items for DMM WG.
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't be in the call today. So, consider this for a discussion. Follow up on
>>>>> the mailing list afterwards would be good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Minor changes..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO..the charter as it is today, would allow pretty much any solution from
>>>>> legacy anchoring to herd of pigeons carrying IP.. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have put in editorial changes of my own and clear text proposals received
>>>>> from others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>
>>
>