Re: draft charter text updates in github..

On Jun 14, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

> 
> Hello Jouni,
> 
> Thanks for incorporating some of my suggested revisions.
> 
> Follow-up below...
> 
> On 6/13/2014 3:41 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>> /* What about RFC 5568 (FMIP)? */
>> 
>> There is the "..such as.." so I think there is no really need to lost all possible MIP6 variations.
> 
> FMIP is particularly important when developing solutions
> that are aimed at localizing handover signaling, and I think
> it deserves particular mention, at the cost of adding ten or
> fifteen more characters to the charter text.

Okay.

>> 
>>> /* What does "eventually" mean?? */
>> 
>> erm.. removed..
> 
> Well, it's still there.  So, maybe, the other dozen or so

D'oh.

> revisions that didn't make it into charter revision #9 were
> intended to be included also...?  I'll await further follow-up
> until I can see whether my other comments were rejected
> or simply overlooked.  Please take a look.

Hmm.. seems i did not include the comments
in the milestones part.. my mistake.

> In particular, misuse of the definite article "the" can be
> interpreted to restrict development to a single solution.
> And, as has been discussed, I think that the dmm WG is
> very likely to develop a suite of smoothly interacting
> solutions.  Moreover, it should be observed that on a
> single mobile node, different applications might require
> different treatment for their end-point IP address.  This
> might also encourage further use of multiple IPv6 addresses
> by a single mobile node, which in my opinion is a positive
> feature.  Or it could elevate the importance of proper
> treatment for flow mobility.
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or do other people prefer "RFC 6275" to
> "RFC6275"?

Spaces are cheap.. will add those.

- Jouni

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Also, the suggested dates for chartered work items seem
>>> quite unrealistic to me.
>> 
>> ;-) +3 months?
> 
> That would at least enable some believability.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I noticed that part of the charter fit nicely in my 80-column
>>> (vi) text window, and part of the charter does not fit nicely.
>>> I could also fix that if desired.
>> 
>> Fixed.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> For convenience, I attached the rfcdiff output from my previous
> text of the charter compared to today's version #9.  If doing so is
> not helpful, please let me know.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> <Diff  dmm_charter-Jun10,2014.txt - dmm_charter-Jun10,2014b.txt.htm>