Re: Going forward with the DMM work items

Hi Behcet,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 12:22 PM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> You deleted maybe by mistake the first three paragraphs of my previous mail.
> 
> Let me add to those one more point:
> 
> Previously mobility groups in IETF produced single protocols like
> Mobile IP or Proxy Mobile IP.
> These protocols have seen some operator adoption, of course not much but some.
> This time we will be asking the operators to adopt exposing mobility
> state protocol, enhanced mobility anchoring protocol and forwarding
> path and signaling protocol (maybe forwarding path protocol and
> signaling protocol)l.
> And maybe deployment models protocol which was in the charter but
> somehow got dropped.
> How is that going to happen?
> 
> Anyway these are my concerns, I could not attend Interim call #2, I
> believe many people could not including Jouni.

Jouni was able to attend the call. I was on the call and asked the
question as to whether non-MIPv6/PMIPv6 solutions could be considered
and the answer I got (I think from Jouni) was "possibly".

> People should speak up, otherwise it appears like it is only my issue.

AERO is a solution alternative that I would like to see taken under
wider consideration within this domain. I think that is starting to
happen through some of the recent list discussions, so others on the
list should now be coming aware of it. I also plan to attend IETF91
where I would ask for another AERO presentation timeslot if it would
please the wg and the chairs.

So, it seems to me that I am already doing all I can. Do you think
I should be doing more?

Thanks - Fred
[email protected]

> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Brian Haberman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/26/14 11:14 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> My question is we do that three four solution drafts and some of them
> >> implemented.
> >> What do we do with them?
> >
> > My expectation, as AD, is that the WG will assess the drafts presented
> > by these teams for adoption.  People's opinion of those drafts should
> > not be influenced by the fact they were written by a team.
> >
> >>
> >> My advice to those colleagues wishing to lead the design teams is to
> >> please come up with your own solution and get into the race with
> >> others.
> >
> > Race?
> >
> >> How come they can get the hat of DT lead and produce something and get
> >> priority over others who worked so hard?
> >
> > First of all, the chairs are well within their right to appoint DT
> > leads.  They could have appointed all the other slots on the DT as well,
> > but chose to ask for volunteers.
> >
> > I do not see anything in Jouni's note that indicates that a team's
> > output gets any preferential treatment.  The rules of the IETF prevent that.
> >
> > To re-enforce Jouni's last sentence...
> >
> >>> These documents will be equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmm mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm