Re: regarding the re-chartering..
Brian Haberman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/24/14 6:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Jouni, > > Regarding > > Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios: > > As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the > deployment models. > > To me it sounds like doing the last thing first, i.e. after we get the > dmm solution we work on how to deploy it (of course if the deployment > has not already been considered by the solution). I may be interpreting the charter incorrectly, but I think there may be a disconnect. I interpreted the the charter text as describing deployment models like: - Wi-Fi-based mobility management - Cellular (e.g., 3GPP) mobility management - Mixed technology mobility management - etc. If that above interpretation is what was intended, I think it makes sense to have that type of description available to guide solution development. If the above is not correct, then I suspect the charter needs some clarification. Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 536 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJT0YYOAAoJEBOZRqCi7goq7OMH/236HD/6iB1NLBRB8h4FG5Uo hh7+SzO8JbzEBIv0+Efc/yJYJ5rlMpJCZTZpA9XhnpEj5HXAEHhUKsXV+nvS9mQi H7vCAfGCbJ67ry7kQw5TkA57QdyjYtPdJoRA1UlmuS2gwV7XxD9raO7PO9JV5Ux5 NDuAX8lomoMA/FRfO3EF6dzKZoXOrIcFQULZ5mtT7q4retf9PvWaqqciBiiFgP/U p0K/sv2S49tgAQIv5f+uZYUUNZNDVJg2SnUev7KpE9g4rlwl8FC8dkhFirfE5b0W edLvDYtgMikoPoxYfsWC0VrwstmSPKD7ivhT8xWjcsAcQ82HqTnMDc0IGUtkC/c= =0Ik0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----