Re: [nemo] New versions of charter

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

hi TJ,

my understanding was that there will also be a general
purpose route optimization solution. and this solution
would not depend on geographically distributed HAs.
this is not mentioned anywhere in the charter. the
charter only talks about "Analysis of the Solution
Space for Route Optimization".

> The working group has work items to describe a basic solution for
> network mobility in IPv6-only networks, and to design a mechanism to
> allow mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks, carrying signalling messages that
> describe both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and mobile network prefixes. The
> latter task is shared with the Mobile IPv6 working group, addressed by
> a joint design team.

this is just DS-MIPv6 (with appropriate extensions for
IPv4 mobile network prefixes), right? nothing more.

Vijay

T.J. Kniveton wrote:
> I have posted a new version of the proposed charter (on the web page) to 
> replace the April 30 version. Some of the changes include:
> 
> - Added some text about v6, v4 and v4/v6 solution distinctions.
> - Added some additional text throughout the tasks/nontasks
> - Added editing and typo fixes as suggested
> - Other suggested changes
> 
> One remaining comment which I have not addressed yet:
> 
> James Kempf wrote:
>> I am very much in favor of making WG charters very specific. It helps 
>> to avoid ambiguity about what the WG is intending to accomplish, and 
>> also helps focus the energy of the WG and avoid having it become 
>> distracted by other proposals that tend to pop up, until the 
>> originally promised work is completed. Therefore, I would recommend 
>> that the charter include a bulleted list with three items 
>> corresponding to each of these new drafts, with each item giving a 
>> concise but complete description of what the promised draft is 
>> intended to accomplish. If there are existing individual drafts that 
>> cover these, the descriptions can be based on the individual drafts. 
>> Also, it might be helpful to be more specific about the goals and 
>> their timing. Rather than just a single goal, have a list that 
>> correspond to the process: 00 WG draft selected by this time, WG last 
>> call by this time, submission to IESG by this time.
> 
> (Some help would be appreciated with this one). I think we still have to 
> adjust the milestones a bit more to make sure everything is explicitly 
> spelled out. I have tried to make the charter as concrete as possible, 
> while still short enough to be manageable/readable. I would like the 
> next revision to focus on the milestones.
> 
> Can people please read this over and make comments/suggestions, with 
> proposed text changes? That would be helpful.
> 
> Thanks,
> TJ
> 
>