Re: WG adoption (was Re: DMM solution space)

Hi Alper,

draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-
00.txt does not use anchoring, I don't know how many times I should tell?

It simply extends vEPC, so it should be classified wherever vEPC is
classified, and I don't care where.

Regards,

Behcet

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Alper Yegin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of this approach. This was my suggestion as well in the past
> (when we presented prefix coloring spec) to move forward some documents.
> But, those should be documents which are considered common across multiple
> solution approaches.
>
>
> Obviously. And that's the case in this particular instance.
>
> Recapping the DMM solution space analysis below.
>
>
> Per-flow IP address configuration according to mobility needs
>
> Apps indicating their mobility needs to the IP stack on the MN, and
> associated IP configuration signaling between the MN and the network.
>
> draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-03
> draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-00.txt
> draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02
>
> Mobility solution selection
>
> MN determining the type of mobility solution(s) it'd apply to a given flow.
>
> draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00
>
> IP anchor selection
>
> MN selecting the IP anchor node after it decides to use IP anchoring
> (whether in the access network or the core network).
>
> draft-aliahmad-dmm-anchor-selection-00.txt
>
>
> Access network anchoring
>
> Anchoring IP address within the access network using IP-in-IP tunneling.
>
> draft-bernardos-dmm-cmip-01
> draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-03
> draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-04
> draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00
> draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt
> draft-seite-dmm-dma-07.txt
> draft-xuan-dmm-nemo-dmm-02.txt
>
>
> Corresponding node/network anchoring
>
> Anchoring IP address on the Corresponding Node or Corresponding Network.
>
> Mobile IPv6 route optimization
> draft-yegin-dmm-cnet-homing-02
> draft-xiong-dmm-ip-reachability-01
>
> Host-route based intra-domain solutions
>
> Non-tunneling solutions.
>
> draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00
> draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02
> draft-mccann-dmm-flatarch-00
>
>
>
>
> Alper
>
>
>
> The issue seems to be charter approval.
>
>
>
>
> Sri
>
>
> On 7/17/14 11:04 AM, "Alper Yegin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Why? Why not make technical progress at every opportunity?
>
> This extreme serialization and every step overly stretchingŠ. am I the
>
> only one having issue with the slow progress?
>
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm