RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on makingIDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
"Soliman, Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com> Sat, 02 April 2005 08:37 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA05324 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:37:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHe2c-0002BL-1y; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:31:38 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHe2F-0002Ah-N1; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:31:15 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04889; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:31:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.flarion.com ([63.103.94.23] helo=ftmailgfi1.flariontech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHe9h-00030B-Ij; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:39:00 -0500
Received: from ftmailserver.flariontech.com ([10.10.1.140]) by ftmailgfi1.flariontech.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:31:03 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on makingIDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:31:03 -0500
Message-ID: <A11736FE943F1A408F8BBB1B9F5FE8AD01CBC730@ftmailserver.flariontech.com>
Thread-Topic: [Mip6] Consensus call on making IDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnelaMIP6/NEMO WGs document
Thread-Index: AcU2v5I6v6wC3vU1ROuQO8Y2kW4a4QADu+tQAAuhshAAGDKocA==
From: "Soliman, Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, mip6@ietf.org, nemo@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2005 08:31:03.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[4EA050F0:01C5375E]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nemo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Raj, I misunderstood your question, so I take back the yes below about the scenario. I don't see how or why you picked this scenario in the first place. I do think we need a list of priorities for scenarios to consider but we need to do that in the context of draft-larsson which is the only doc that lists all scenarios. Once we have that discussion we can pick scenarios to consider for solutions. Hesham > -----Original Message----- > From: nemo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nemo-bounces@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of > Soliman, Hesham > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 3:58 PM > To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; mip6@ietf.org; nemo@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on > makingIDdraft-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. > =========================================================== > > >
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on makingIDd… Brijesh Kumar
- RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on makingIDd… Soliman, Hesham