Re: Oops, that was the wrong attachment!! <was, Re: draft charter text updates in github..>
Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Fixed. 6/14/2014 2:47 AM, Charles E. Perkins kirjoitti: > Oops, that was the wrong attachment!! > > Please excuse my error. The proper file is attached to this message. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > On 6/13/2014 4:37 PM, 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. >> >>> >>>> /* What does "eventually" mean?? */ >>> >>> erm.. removed.. >> >> Well, it's still there. So, maybe, the other dozen or so >> 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. >> >> 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"? >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > -- > Regards, > Charlie P. >