Hi Behcet, > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 12:22 PM > To: Brian Haberman > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items > > Hi Brian, > > You deleted maybe by mistake the first three paragraphs of my previous mail. > > Let me add to those one more point: > > Previously mobility groups in IETF produced single protocols like > Mobile IP or Proxy Mobile IP. > These protocols have seen some operator adoption, of course not much but some. > This time we will be asking the operators to adopt exposing mobility > state protocol, enhanced mobility anchoring protocol and forwarding > path and signaling protocol (maybe forwarding path protocol and > signaling protocol)l. > And maybe deployment models protocol which was in the charter but > somehow got dropped. > How is that going to happen? > > Anyway these are my concerns, I could not attend Interim call #2, I > believe many people could not including Jouni.
Jouni was able to attend the call. I was on the call and asked the question as to whether non-MIPv6/PMIPv6 solutions could be considered and the answer I got (I think from Jouni) was "possibly". > People should speak up, otherwise it appears like it is only my issue. AERO is a solution alternative that I would like to see taken under wider consideration within this domain. I think that is starting to happen through some of the recent list discussions, so others on the list should now be coming aware of it. I also plan to attend IETF91 where I would ask for another AERO presentation timeslot if it would please the wg and the chairs. So, it seems to me that I am already doing all I can. Do you think I should be doing more? Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Brian Haberman > <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/26/14 11:14 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > >> > >> My question is we do that three four solution drafts and some of them > >> implemented. > >> What do we do with them? > > > > My expectation, as AD, is that the WG will assess the drafts presented > > by these teams for adoption. People's opinion of those drafts should > > not be influenced by the fact they were written by a team. > > > >> > >> My advice to those colleagues wishing to lead the design teams is to > >> please come up with your own solution and get into the race with > >> others. > > > > Race? > > > >> How come they can get the hat of DT lead and produce something and get > >> priority over others who worked so hard? > > > > First of all, the chairs are well within their right to appoint DT > > leads. They could have appointed all the other slots on the DT as well, > > but chose to ask for volunteers. > > > > I do not see anything in Jouni's note that indicates that a team's > > output gets any preferential treatment. The rules of the IETF prevent that. > > > > To re-enforce Jouni's last sentence... > > > >>> These documents will be equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though. > > > > Regards, > > Brian > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > dmm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
