IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multimob] Charter discussion

Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> Mon, 22 June 2009 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: multimob@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multimob@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48333A6898 for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U0GXguTxDcSL for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [67.195.15.168]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E76C93A672F for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 98307 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Jun 2009 21:24:00 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1245705840; bh=IrDUE86IoHfyz4PCMH27iicWne7O33/uH5fRAH7b9xk=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=srMgJKifgjUnNzVU1ZNESYUOJ6H7vw4hJADdjOyF8qnpcXshUnk6ISmpWxNe3PBB8Ky3vZab/YLChcf2ulbERDX1pYx1orhsOinJm4WQSNkjZ7LfeX4fKpu5rGVAdva4Kc4RmM5v3ndltQbsejyW4PG7oCGqPLAUc50t6qBXGDE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=5kLp8LV4iqPrVk/lAcsQz9/VqVjM6LdRFPr6px/pRvf/AsTsO1acbD9/BmOS7Ikj+7OnJAPHkD/hcBO/3AldKcuGgBpYdp64OzMoSPrbWC/QvgNdi2LqKNYUOVtZU8+XK65/Aqgpt6VX/7/92DOZrWsYFjzm+rQkPpQHMd4amrE=;
Message-ID: <513081.97456.qm@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: 9cn.ymoVM1nhcF0OKwT4fVkNUUImPHTkNgy3GCuxt35dp48cR2bBpEBZXenyRdTrCK.S1IYau.Vq_WmhW8VpicxpgGgBbpdDc2g_cy6f15kL.kzSr34pvPI3TyI2dRlaa4o1SeePEGxdRHKwlqNZUvayrre451BVjmJI0ysmBiO7t5yu..xcZppGhhIp7XgtaN4b8PI6fla_ffOLxao71IFL1CwS1cpuAn_6ozgOwt3w3ZLIDYdTVoSwhiXMLP_3aQoSV3KPr2wmB9EH2Q8HfjhsNJTD7QOYR8nWHFtdzm9YioW0vAE6Ogb3qCPTobxmmLPn4zRGqU6kpchz3Lo8gs09FQ--
Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:24:00 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1277.43 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.15
References: <692113.93816.qm@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4A3FA683.3010908@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4A3FC8CB.8070405@fhtw-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:24:00 -0700
From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@fhtw-berlin.de>, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <4A3FC8CB.8070405@fhtw-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: multimob@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multimob] Charter discussion
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob>
List-Post: <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:23:53 -0000

----- Original Message ----
> From: Thomas C. Schmidt <schmidt@fhtw-berlin.de>
> To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> Cc: multimob@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:09:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [multimob] Charter discussion
> 
> Hi Gorry,
> 
> I pretty much agree with the charter and modified list of milestones below. In 
> particular, it sounds reasonable to move multihoming out of the first 6 month. 
> There might be also interest to treat mobility protocols other than PMIP.
> 
> Regarding problem-statements/ requirement drafts: I suppose, a general problem 
> statement is not needed (but there). Specific requirements drafts have been 
> around (and should be improved), but will not be needed for the initial BCP-type 
> of activities: requirements here are obvious as given from the related specs in 
> mcast and mobility.

Yes, specific requirements draft like:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-mobility-req-01.txt

need to be improved, the authors, please post a revised version and let us know.

Regards,

Behcet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email