Re: [mif] Call for WG adoption

Hello all,

I saw the support from the mailing list,  plus design team's support, so
the concensus has been achieved,
please authors help to submit the draft with working group name.

thanks a lot

-Hui

2014/1/13 Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>

> I support adoption.
>
> Nit: "ortunneling" should split.
>
> Architecturally  speaking, I wonder whether the semantics of querying
> the obtention of a PVD based on an IP address is described.
>
> Let me explain why.
>
> We are considering locally the expression of an energy metric in a PVD.
>  This would for example be sent by the network to the mobile telling it
> that one of its interfaces is that much energy-hungry.
>
> But the other way around should also be possible: a mobile may request
> an interface to the network how many Joules are needed to reach a
> particular IP destination.
>
> For that to work, there would be need for the mobile to query the
> network using an IP address as key, and obtaining a particular PVD.
> This is akin to the option of sending an Neighbor Solicitation for a
> particular Target address.
>
> I had a look at the section 2.4 "PVD Identifying/Naming" but I could not
> find an indication that would consider that a PVD Identifier be an IP
> address.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Le 07/01/2014 06:44, Hui Deng a écrit :
>
>> Hello all, Please express your opinion whether you would like to have
>> below draft adopted as the WG document?
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-05.txt Thanks,
>> -cochairs of WG
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list
>> mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>