Re: [netext] Consensus call: Specify Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

Q1: Do you agree with the problem, solution and benefit of the ANI
option as  described in I-D:
draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt?

Yes  [O]
No   [ ]

Q2: Do you support adoption of the I-D
draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt as the starting
point for working on this feature in the WG?

Yes  [O]
No   [ ]

Best regards,
Jinho Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:08 PM
To: netext@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Consensus call: Specify Access Network Information Option
for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

The proposal: "Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6"
<draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt> Was discussed
at the IETF81 Netext WG meeting.

Rough consensus from polling the WG members in the room indicated:
"
5 have read the draft
4 think it is a relevant problem and we have to solve it
2 think it is no clear reason to carry more than ATT
"

This email is a follow up on the WG ML before we make a decision. So
please respond to the following questions:

Q1: Do you agree with the problem, solution and benefit of the ANI
option as  described in I-D:
draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt?

Yes  [ ]
No   [ ]

Q2: Do you support adoption of the I-D
draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt as the starting
point for working on this feature in the WG?

Yes  [ ]
No   [ ]

Please respond by August 18th to the above questions on the ML.

-Chairs

_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext