Hi Behcet, Hi all, I agree that we should be open for the WG adoption of more than one individual drafts that are focussing in the multicast handover optimization. Furthermore, I also agree to investigate whether more individual drafts could be accepted as WG drafts in the area of handover optimization. However, during the multimob meting in Vancouver, positive votes/opinions have already been expressed for the adoption of the draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast as a WG multimob draft. Therefore, it can be somehow deduced that the draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast can at this moment, already be adopted as a WG multimob draft.
The next step will then be to investigate which other multicast handover optimization individual drafts can also be adopted as a multimob WG multimob draft. Best regards, Georgios ________________________________________ Van: [email protected] [[email protected]] namens Behcet Sarikaya [[email protected]] Verzonden: dinsdag 31 juli 2012 22:31 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: [multimob] Adoption of HO drafts incl. draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast Hi all, There is an issue that we missed in Monday Multimob session that I would like to bring to attention: We did have, apart from draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast, several other multicast handover solution drafts such as: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vonhugo-multimob-cxtp-extension-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 These are the documents that are still active. There could be others that are no longer active. If we decide to accept more than one handover solution then we probably need to consider all of them for possible WG adoption. What do you think? Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
