I support Stig's opinion. Actually, we did not get much attention for this progress regardless of the draft's superiority. I know main active MULTIMOB folks didn't show their minds yet since it was requested. I believe we need more discussion about technical aspects of candidate drafts as long as it takes.
As another suggestion, I think we need to have "requirement" or "problem statement" before getting started discussion for future items, if MULTIMOB is re-chartered. Since it was not made, we often confuse in the way how to work, e.g. solution use-case, solution scope or boundaries not to cross, etc. Best Regards, Seil -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 6:05 PM To: Wen Luo Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 Responding as an individual. In my opinion we should not adopt this draft at this point. This draft hasn't been discussed in a while (at least not from I can remember), and we should have more discussion in the WG to understand better whether we need multiple fast handover solutions. We need to understand better what are the pros and cons of the different solutions, and see if they are sufficiently different that multiple solutions are needed, or whether a single solution can be made to sufficiently cover the more important use-cases. I'm not saying that this draft should never be adopted. But I don't think we've had sufficient discussion in the WG. Based on my knowledge right now, I don't know what is the best path forward. Stig _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
