Re: [MEXT] Paris meeting

Alexandru Petrescu <> Tue, 17 January 2012 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153E721F8581 for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:39:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.766
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3aN2jME5Muz7 for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3565D21F857D for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id q0H7db9e020852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:39:37 +0100
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0H7dbLr007447 for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:39:37 +0100 (envelope-from
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id q0H7dYHZ014182 for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:39:36 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:39:34 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Paris meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:39:40 -0000

Sorry - following up on my own email.

I have missed the earlier announcement of this being a WG, the DMM WG.

Just some side notes.

I have followed the DMM discussion and I was not persuaded the effort
were clear enough.  But the Charter seems to be inline with this lack of
clarity.  It looks to me as more of a place to develop new things
whatever they may be.

For example, it does not say whether Mobile IPv6 is a must or not.

The email list is still although the WG is called DMM.  I
personally prefer the email list to be called as well.
When I invite somebody to join I say "join DMM WG by subscribing to MEXT
email list, even though the MEXT WG is dead, err... re-chartered".

There is a conscious action in joining a particular email list, but now
all MEXT subscribers have their consciousness forced into DMM... is this

The 6MAN WG has a similar practice where the email list is called
"".org".  I thought this practice not intuitive for outsiders, I
still think so.

Finally, there is some activities in MEXT which are
automatically declared dead by this MEXT-DMM re-Chartering.  One would
expect see an explanation about this disappearing.


Le 16/01/2012 17:03, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
> In communicating I need to understand whether I can say DMM WG? Is
> this really a WG?
> Alex
> Le 16/01/2012 15:16, jouni korhonen a écrit :
>> Folks,
>> Just to let you know we have applied for 2.5h slot for the Paris
>> DMM WG meeting. So there should be enough time for a couple of
>> presentations and also have relevant discussions..
>> - Jouni& Julien _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list