Re: [multimob] Comments on draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

Hy everybody,

are we satisfied with the charter proposal and the problem statement? It 
was my impression that a lot of people didn't agree with some of the 
assumptions made there. For example, LMA vs. MAG as multicast endpoints.

So maybe we should revise those documents and be a little more 
conservative about the assumptions and statements made there. Something 
along the lines of examining current multicast behavior in PMIP with the 
goal of working on a best-practice guide or optimizations where needed.

At least the discussion during the BOF showed, that the specifications 
are not clear about multicast in PMIP and clarifications are needed.

Best regards
   Niklas

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hello all,
>   At Multimob BoF last week it became clear that PMIPv6 requirements 
> draft concentrated (probably) too much on the operating requirements and 
> failed to state some simple traffic requirements.
>   I remember these traffic requirements were already stated in the pre 
> BoF meeting we had in Dublin.
>   Any comments? Suresh?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> multimob@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

-- 
Niklas Neumann - University of Goettingen, Institute of Computer Science
http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~nneuman1/
Tel: +49 551 39-172053
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob