Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..

Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Fri, 05 September 2014 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F7E1A066B for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 01:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c1k1rEtt1I9w for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 01:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFCB81A064F for <dmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 01:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.49] (88.247.135.202.static.ttnet.com.tr [88.247.135.202]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mreueus001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MQ4iz-1XUThV20sF-005I2h; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:44:34 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
In-Reply-To: <54083F9A.8030507@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:44:28 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <585ACD51-4510-47DC-AEB6-9D63C0C2E725@yegin.org>
References: <53D17F75.3030207@gmail.com> <53D7A012.2050700@gmail.com> <53D8AAE0.4040301@gmail.com> <2E9AF0DF-8B1A-475B-B5FB-ED5E419F0085@yegin.org> <53EB4F10.1040502@gmail.com> <A02C6954-3EC9-443F-ACC3-4A635EC79EFC@yegin.org> <53F35B44.1090808@gmail.com> <1E1DFA1F-8BC5-474B-A792-A8681A99D094@yegin.org> <72DAF3D2-05D9-4A1E-9185-7265AA915075@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcegx1QPATsrPS-v-dkoLbaSTNqE3M+BbrYJPHrCFKMyXA@mail.gmail.com> <5404BC3D.1000406@gmail.com> <CAC8QAccqjXHogC44iOBO5bDccFBRixgcgrQU=hst8ZYGM3Y5xA@mail.gmail.com> <5406A20F.60604@gmail.com> <CAC8QAccBSXSsydagekNHnBbaYvmtTdm=xv5aEE64c+=9X2Fp9w@mail.gmail.com> <5407422F.2010700@innovationslab.net> <CAC8QAcdvdY1Kbys4a=dw9aQ4cUs8cnRcnfaujxm1Fjn6_EAvkg@mail.gmail.com> <54074DAB.9020801@innovationslab.net> <CAC8QAcfVBeToUYYMp1uKTDwx8dGHw5TP2MTTSw8wziepcEZCsw@mail.gmail.com> <540763A0.7080509@innovationslab.net> <54083B6C.5010701@gmail.com> <54083F9A.8030507@computer.org>
To: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:8O5HWTViflQUmK73hPHPsODHUvh/zVwlOc3oWFw3UUP U+zQDzFtalTiGWpvAatdPsx7E0HWCE/0kHPvolPd1qES7pBIYG mbw8uwkPp1gIZ0gCWDMdxAGsbK67ADNz2RxaiIVJp/d5lnGYN/ GbxFsmV5mi3yhm6IRAV5ygjmvO1iQ74J05GtD1tXQsuSx/3XsF +T0D+ESmCpycfkeCsrOkfbF2cj0hL16lSB8eK98hDrAKUKkA32 oFSfuVb3vcLgfiJKb2+nv9CdAkJHUdUv4YyfbFYqhd9qgrUf5m SCP1Oxjqqln5Z/BfYks/Smy+r+2HD9jadW9gTktrJ69W7acwdG AhYrg3p6pTnCKJXKSH5UJJXmQnaeyodC8o9GzctD9QCZ75kxoV xL/TmungC/m9A==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/-GR06cp-suQf205F6d9_oe-_nzc
Cc: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:44:39 -0000

Hi Charlie,

Success is when we see the protocols we design are deployed and used.
Whether it's over 3GPP, WiFi, or something else.
The more the merrier.

I don't think anyone is preventing use of DMM over WiFi.

Alper





On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
> 
> Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
> the gaps as analyzed in the gap analysis document, have we succeeded?
> 
> Or, is there a requirement for the work to be adopted by 3GPP?
> 
> What if we design for IEEE 802 Wireless, which is currently carrying the
> preponderance of the world's wireless data, and will almost assuredly
> continue to carry a greater proportion?
> 
> Regards
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/4/2014 3:14 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> ....
>> 
>> In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a
>> hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP -
>> and the deployments.  We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments
>> (2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP.  We also know that 3GPP specs do
>> mention Mobile IP. To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not
>> the same disconnect as here.
>> 
>> On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used
>> - the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the
>> slideware attracting real customers.
>> 
>> The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmm mailing list
>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm