Re: draft charter text updates in github..

A heavily updated charter text in the github. I am not sure it addresses 
all wording concerns folks had. But.. flame on ;)

Reading the telco notes I realize I do not have nor have seen the slides 
shown during the call, so probably the "re-anchoring" sanitization in 
the charter text went too far compared what was discussed in the call. 
Please check.

If you have concerns on the milestones and specifically their timeline, 
express your opinion with a new month+year combination.

The cooperation with other WGs is heavily reworded. Basically it says 
now that DMM can mock other protocols but those then need review & 
ratification from the protocol "owning" WG, just like commonly done with 
DHCP & RADIUS.

Routing based solutions are now explicitly stated to be restricted to 
IGP routing domain and must not propagate routing updates outside the 
IGP routing domain.

Regarding the "enhanced mobility anchoring" milestone that could also be 
put under maintenance:

   Work items related to the PMIPv6 maintenance include:

    o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a
      gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility
      anchor switching that go beyond what has been, for example,
      described in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. The solution should also
      define a mechanism for preserving ongoing mobility sessions in a
      single administrative or IGP routing domain, which would involve
      directing traffic towards the new anchor.

Opinions?


- Jouni



6/6/2014 5:37 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
> 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
>