On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> wrote: > o Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes: > define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to select > either a care-of address or a home address depending on an > application' mobility needs. In order to enable this > > To me it is there.. > > functionality, the network-side control functions and other > networking nodes must also be able to exchange appropriate > control information, as well as to the mobile nodes and their > applications. > > And again here. > > If apps or mobile node need to be able to select appropriate address I find > it ok to describe it.. call it api or not in the charter. > > - Jouni >
Not to me. I don't see any API. The API RFC 5014 was done in 6man. mif WG used to do API. mif WG had clear items on API in its charter. Regards, Behcet > > > > 6/29/2016, 1:12 PM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Lo and behold your cry for intended status change will happen! >>> >> >> >> Lo I just now checked it. >> I could not see any API development in dmm charter. >> >> Aren't you responsible for this? >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >>> >>> Actually, this came up earlier because 1) the I-D makes a normative >>> referecence to an informational RFC5014 and 2) API documents are >>> informational in general. It just did not make to the latest revision.. >>> >> >> >>> - JOuni >>> >>> >>> 6/29/2016, 9:07 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I quickly looked at this draft. >>>> It seems like the authors or Danny changed "sustained IP address" to >>>> "session lasting IP address". It sounds a bit better. >>>> However, my concerns about sustained IP address remain the same on the >>>> session lasting IP address because semantically they mean the same >>>> thing, the session lasting is just a more flashy name. >>>> >>>> I really don't understand how in the world this draft became a WG >>>> draft in the first place. Given that, my suggestion is to finish up >>>> this work by changing it to Informational. I don't believe it is >>>> implementable. >>>> >>>> This draft is also not the type of draft dmm should be working on, dmm >>>> I think is a continuation of MIP related mobility WGs and this draft >>>> has nothing to do with this. >>>> >>>> Make it Informational, folks. >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
