Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group

Hi all,

I am confused about all these very high level, intelligent looking
comments, and I must say I am fed up with them :-).

Non-tunneled communications is already there in DMM. You connect to the
nearest HA and all new communications is non-tunneled.

Do we agree that we should differentiate client-based and network based
protocols and discuss them in different places? or even there is no issue
for one.

I think this is what we should decide now.

Regards,

Behcet

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:19 AM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>wrote:

> Pete,
>
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Pete McCann wrote:
>
> > A good architecture is made not only from deciding what to standardize
> but
> > also from what not to standardize.
>
> Exactly.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Perhaps IETF could take LIPA as a starting point to design a cleaner
> > mobility management solution.
>
> What came out from a certain SDO as a "Local IP Access" did not turn out
> as the most elegant solution :) But I do agree that from the idea & initial
> use case point of view, it definitely is something to look at.. even as a
> basis for a cleaner design.
>
> > It isn't clear to me that we should even start with tunnels as a basic
> building
> > block.
>
> I am along the same lines. See my earlier mail on the charter
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04905.html
>
> - Jouni
>
>
>
> >
> > -Pete
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Charlie,
> >>
> >> I agree completely with you on the problems with the current interfaces
> in
> >> LTE, and in 3G before that.
> >> I don't know what the best way to go about it would be. I say this
> because
> >> many people on this list are aware of what's happening in LTE and
> >> presumably have similar opinions about the complexity of their
> solutions,
> >> but it's still there.
> >>
> >> Hesham
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
> >> Organization: Wichorus Inc.
> >> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700
> >> To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> >> Cc: <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>, <mext@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
> >>
> >>> Hello folks,
> >>>
> >>> For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless
>
> [snap]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>