RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making IDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

 > Do you agree/disagree that the above scenario is the one that needs
 > to be solved ASAP?

=> I agree.

 > (Note: It does not imply that other scenarios are 
 > irrelevant. It simply
 > means that this is the scenario worth working on and has the most 
 > significant priority or value for MIP6 deployment.)
 > 
 > 2. ID:  draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel can be used as the baseline. It
 > does not imply that we are ruling out draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv6 or any
 > other. 

=> I don't see how it doesn't imply that. I think we should agree
on the scenario first, without associating it with either draft-wakikawa
or draft-soliman. Once we agreed, we can discuss how to solve the 
problem. I disagree with making draft-wakikawa a baseline. 

Hesham

The IDs can be combined w.r.t the parts that address 
 > this scenario.
 > Additionally once it is a WG document, what goes into the ID 
 > is decided
 > by the WG. So lets not get into arguments of what or whose 
 > draft is the
 > one that should be made the WG document.
 > 
 > -Basavaraj
 > 
 > 

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6