Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi Dirk, I agree. It will take some efforts to do the content merge. Regards Sri On 1/14/13 6:12 AM, "dirk.von-h...@telekom.de" wrote: >Hi Sri and all, >Although it's too late (sorry for that) I agree with you and others who >commented similarly that it's impossible (for me) to judge - both >proposals and analysis approaches have their pros and cons and are quite >even in quality of writing. If I only knew how to split and merge ... > > >Best regards >Dirk > ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Folks, The WGLC has concluded already some time ago. In a meantime we (chairs) and the respective authors of both documents have had some constructive discussions on the background. Based on the poll [2] got more "rough consensus" i.e. about 2/3 ;) However, as indicated by several WG members, merging these two documents would actually make sense. And chairs and the document authors agree with this. Thus, here is what we came up with. Both [1] and [2] will be merged and there the WG has an important role to say _how_ and _which_ parts go where. Based on the poll result [2] will serve as the basis that we start building upon. There will be named editors from both documents on the draft-ietf-dmm-*-00 (Dapeng and Juan-Carlos) and then rest are acknowledged as contributors (like it is a custom with many authors). Once the draft-ietf-dmm-*-00 is out, I encourage WG members to start working on the document already before the Orlando meeting. It would be good to have a properly revised version in Orlando WG meeting to discuss face to face. - Jouni & Julien On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > wrote: > >> Dear chairs, >> >> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, >> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last >> meeting. Main changes from -02 are: >> >> - New section on 3GPP mobility. >> - New section on functional analysis. >> - New section on combined solution analysis. >> - Several fixes and clean-ups. >> >> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new revision >> (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just submitted. > > > This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. > > - Jouni & Julien. > > > > >> >> Thanks! >> >> Carlos >> >> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for >>> that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" >>> document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two >>> documents on this topic to choose from: >>> >>> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 >>> [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 >>> >>> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for >>> the WG document. >>> >>> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. >>> We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for >>> your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus >>> from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against >>> the other. >>> >>> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a >>> longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. >>> >>> - Jouni & Julien >>> ___ >>> 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi Sri and all, Although it's too late (sorry for that) I agree with you and others who commented similarly that it's impossible (for me) to judge - both proposals and analysis approaches have their pros and cons and are quite even in quality of writing. If I only knew how to split and merge ... Best regards Dirk -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Januar 2013 00:39 An: dmm@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document I've reviewed both the documents and here is my feedback. 1. Both the documents are well written and many points are valid and equally many points are also debatable, but is not a blocker for the draft adoption. 3. Given the efforts put in by the Authors of both the documents, I'd hate to pick one document. This is literally a beauty context and they all look lovely :) So, I'd suggest a merger of both of the documents, or some how split the work into two parts and let both the groups work on respective parts. Sri >Le 19/12/2012 21:25, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : >> Folks, >> >> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies >> for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap >> analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. >> We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: >> >> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] >> draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 >> >> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ >> for the WG document. >> >> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the >> mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a >> one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine >> if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed >> with selecting one document against the other. >> >> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We >> have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. >> >> - Jouni & Julien ___ 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 ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi all I prefer [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 more than the first one. Best Regards, Wei From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:04 AM To: Seok-Joo Koh Cc: Julien Laganier; dmm@ietf.org; Jouni Korhonen Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Seok-Joo Koh mailto:sj...@knu.ac.kr>> wrote: Happy a new year to everyone ! [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 seems to be more faithful to the original motivations to DMM. In addition, both of the two documents are worthwhile to consider in the future works on DMM. Accordingly, it is suggested to use [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 as the base document, and to merge [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 into [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 appropriately. Folks let's be realistic. I conjecture that both documents will end up becoming WG drafts. Why? Consider what happened in Softwire. Since both are informational, no problem. Regards, Behcet Cheers, Seok-Joo Koh sj...@knu.ac.kr<mailto:sj...@knu.ac.kr> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Jouni Korhonen mailto:jouni...@gmail.com>> wrote: Folks, We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG document. Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. - Jouni & Julien ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm -- RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
I've reviewed both the documents and here is my feedback. 1. Both the documents are well written and many points are valid and equally many points are also debatable, but is not a blocker for the draft adoption. 3. Given the efforts put in by the Authors of both the documents, I'd hate to pick one document. This is literally a beauty context and they all look lovely :) So, I'd suggest a merger of both of the documents, or some how split the work into two parts and let both the groups work on respective parts. Sri >Le 19/12/2012 21:25, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : >> Folks, >> >> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies >> for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap >> analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. >> We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: >> >> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] >> draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 >> >> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ >> for the WG document. >> >> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the >> mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a >> one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine >> if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed >> with selecting one document against the other. >> >> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We >> have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. >> >> - Jouni & Julien ___ 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
I support [2] draft-liu as basis for WG item, because it first abstracts the common functions of mobility protocols. And, a combination of the two could only be better, right? Alex Le 19/12/2012 21:25, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG document. Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. - Jouni & Julien ___ 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi all, Sorry for my last minute comment. In comparing the two documents, [1] gives a detailed analysis of 3GPP technologies, but may be too much focused on one SDO. [2] analyzes WiFi networks as well as 3GPP, which provides somewhat a good balance for an IETF document by mentioning multiple access technologies. If I have to pick only one, [2] "draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01" is good for the base document. Regards, -- Hidetoshi (2012/12/20 5:25), Jouni Korhonen wrote: > Folks, > > We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. > The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to > serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on > this topic to choose from: > > [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the > WG document. > > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. > We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for > your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from > active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the > other. > > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a > longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > > - Jouni & Julien > ___ > 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi, all I think [2] is more suitable for the gap analysis and as the base of further discussion. BR, Yang == Yang Cui, Ph.D. Huawei Technologies cuiy...@huawei.com > |-Original Message- > |From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > |Jouni Korhonen > |Sent: jueves, 03 de enero de 2013 13:05 > |To: dmm@ietf.org > |Cc: Julien Laganier > |Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap > |analysis" document > | > | > |Folks, > | > |Just a reminder that ~one more week time to voice your preference! > | > |- Jouni > | > | > |On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen > wrote: > | > |> > |> On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > | wrote: > |> > |>> Dear chairs, > |>> > |>> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, > |>> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the > |>> last meeting. Main changes from -02 are: > |>> > |>> - New section on 3GPP mobility. > |>> - New section on functional analysis. > |>> - New section on combined solution analysis. > |>> - Several fixes and clean-ups. > |>> > |>> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new > |>> revision (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just > |submitted. > |> > |> > |> This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. > |> > |> - Jouni & Julien. > |> > |> > |> > |> > |>> > |>> Thanks! > |>> > |>> Carlos > |>> > |>> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > |>>> Folks, > |>>> > |>>> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies > |for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap > |analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We > |consider two documents on this topic to choose from: > |>>> > |>>> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] > |>>> draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > |>>> > |>>> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the > |>>> _basis_ > |for the WG document. > |>>> > |>>> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the > |mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner > |justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is > |(rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting > |one document against the other. > |>>> > |>>> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We > |have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > |>>> > |>>> - Jouni & Julien > |>>> ___ > |>>> 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 > > ___ > 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi all, As for the current discussion on adopting a "current practices and gap analysis" document, I express my support to [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03. It seems to me that it is a better base document for the group. Cheers, Rui Costa |-Original Message- |From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of |Jouni Korhonen |Sent: jueves, 03 de enero de 2013 13:05 |To: dmm@ietf.org |Cc: Julien Laganier |Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap |analysis" document | | |Folks, | |Just a reminder that ~one more week time to voice your preference! | |- Jouni | | |On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: | |> |> On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano | wrote: |> |>> Dear chairs, |>> |>> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, |>> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the |>> last meeting. Main changes from -02 are: |>> |>> - New section on 3GPP mobility. |>> - New section on functional analysis. |>> - New section on combined solution analysis. |>> - Several fixes and clean-ups. |>> |>> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new |>> revision (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just |submitted. |> |> |> This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. |> |> - Jouni & Julien. |> |> |> |> |>> |>> Thanks! |>> |>> Carlos |>> |>> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: |>>> Folks, |>>> |>>> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies |for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap |analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We |consider two documents on this topic to choose from: |>>> |>>> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] |>>> draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 |>>> |>>> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the |>>> _basis_ |for the WG document. |>>> |>>> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the |mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner |justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is |(rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting |one document against the other. |>>> |>>> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We |have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. |>>> |>>> - Jouni & Julien |>>> ___ |>>> 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 ___ 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] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Dear all, I support [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03 draft as basis for the WG document. Br Antonio -- -- Antonio de la Oliva aol...@it.uc3m.es Departamento Ing. Telematica Universidad Carlos III de Madrid ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hello folks, I support document [2] and some beneficial contents of [1], I think, can be merged to [2] Thank you. BRs, Heeyoung JUNG > -Original Message- > From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Jouni Korhonen > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:25 AM > To: dmm@ietf.org > Cc: Julien Laganier > Subject: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap > analysis" document > > > Folks, > > We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for > that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" > document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider > two documents on this topic to choose from: > > [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for > the WG document. > > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing > list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner > justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is > (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting > one document against the other. > > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a > longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > > - Jouni & Julien > ___ > 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi all, I'd like to support [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03 as baseline draft, as I think it is more complete and provides a better structure for further developments and extensions within the WG. Best Regards, Fabio |-Original Message- |From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of |Jouni Korhonen |Sent: jueves, 03 de enero de 2013 13:05 |To: dmm@ietf.org |Cc: Julien Laganier |Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap |analysis" document | | |Folks, | |Just a reminder that ~one more week time to voice your preference! | |- Jouni | | |On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: | |> |> On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano | wrote: |> |>> Dear chairs, |>> |>> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, |>> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the |>> last meeting. Main changes from -02 are: |>> |>> - New section on 3GPP mobility. |>> - New section on functional analysis. |>> - New section on combined solution analysis. |>> - Several fixes and clean-ups. |>> |>> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new |>> revision (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just |submitted. |> |> |> This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. |> |> - Jouni & Julien. |> |> |> |> |>> |>> Thanks! |>> |>> Carlos |>> |>> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: |>>> Folks, |>>> |>>> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies |for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap |analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We |consider two documents on this topic to choose from: |>>> |>>> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] |>>> draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 |>>> |>>> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ |for the WG document. |>>> |>>> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the |mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner |justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is |(rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting |one document against the other. |>>> |>>> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We |have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. |>>> |>>> - Jouni & Julien |>>> ___ |>>> 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 ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Seok-Joo Koh wrote: > Happy a new year to everyone ! > > ** ** > > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 seems to be more faithful > to the original motivations to DMM. > > ** ** > > In addition, both of the two documents are worthwhile to consider in the > future works on DMM. > > Accordingly, it is suggested to use [2] > draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 as the base document, and *** > * > > to merge [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 into [2] > draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 appropriately. > > ** > Folks let's be realistic. I conjecture that both documents will end up becoming WG drafts. Why? Consider what happened in Softwire. Since both are informational, no problem. Regards, Behcet > ** > > Cheers, > > ** ** > > ************ > > Seok-Joo Koh**** > > sj...@knu.ac.kr**** > > ** ** > > *Subject:* Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap > analysis" document > > ** ** > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Jouni Korhonen > wrote: > > ** ** > > Folks, > > We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for > that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" > document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two > documents on this topic to choose from: > > [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for > the WG document. > > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing > list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification > for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus > from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against > the other. > > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a > longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > > - Jouni & Julien > ___ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > > > > ** ** > > -- > > RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France > > Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random > > ** ** > > #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com > > #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ > > ___ > 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi Jouni, all, I do support draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 as the base document for the DMM gap analysis. In my opinion this document is more complete, better structured and documented, broadly covering the purpose of reviewing existing protocols and analyzing how they fit on the DMM framework. Best regards, Luis Luis M. Contreras Technology / Global CTO / Telefónica Efficiency Projects / Telefónica I+D Distrito Telefónica, Edificio Sur 3, Planta 3 28050 Madrid España / Spain l...@tid.es Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Happy a new year to everyone ! [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 seems to be more faithful to the original motivations to DMM. In addition, both of the two documents are worthwhile to consider in the future works on DMM. Accordingly, it is suggested to use [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 as the base document, and to merge [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 into [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 appropriately. Cheers, Seok-Joo Koh sj...@knu.ac.kr Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: Folks, We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG document. Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. - Jouni & Julien ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm -- RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi Jouni & Julien, |[1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 |[2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 After going through the two drafts, I think that [2] is in much better shape as it stands now to form the _basis_ for a WG document, as it includes a gap analysis that is more sober, technical, and concise than [1]. I find sec. 2 in [1] useful and better written than the rest of the document, but I'm not in favor of a WG draft that looks into dozens of approaches and extensions which, due to space concerns, can only stay at a very high level of detail. I would imagine that a journal publication is a more suitable venue for this type of work. As it stands now, the core part of [1] (i.e. gap analysis, sec. 3) is quite repetitive (at times, of the copy+paste variant), and runs for several pages which need editing for language and content. Finally, it appears that based on the Table in section 4.1 (p. 22) of [1], we're kind of done in DMM: LMA RA (and some salt :) fulfills all REQs. Best regards, Kostas ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Dear all, I support [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01, which provides clear current practices of IP mobility protocols and gap analysis. Cheers. On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > Folks, > > We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for > that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" > document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two > documents on this topic to choose from: > > [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for > the WG document. > > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing > list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification > for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus > from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against > the other. > > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a > longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > > - Jouni & Julien > ___ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > -- RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Hi all, I support [1] (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03) as WG document adoption. It has specified current practices well in details, analyzing gaps and limitations. I hope we'll able to progress the rest of DMM items. Regards, Seil -Original Message- From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:05 PM To: dmm@ietf.org Cc: Julien Laganier Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document Folks, Just a reminder that ~one more week time to voice your preference! - Jouni On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote: > >> Dear chairs, >> >> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, >> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the >> last meeting. Main changes from -02 are: >> >> - New section on 3GPP mobility. >> - New section on functional analysis. >> - New section on combined solution analysis. >> - Several fixes and clean-ups. >> >> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new >> revision (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just submitted. > > > This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. > > - Jouni & Julien. > > > > >> >> Thanks! >> >> Carlos >> >> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: >>> >>> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] >>> draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 >>> >>> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG document. >>> >>> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. >>> >>> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. >>> >>> - Jouni & Julien >>> ___ >>> 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 ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Dear all, As I already mentioned during previous email discussions, I think that draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [1], describes well several mobility protocols considered for gap analysis and it describes a clear identification of their limitations! Therefore I am in favour of adopting this draft as a WG draft! The number of the discussed mobility protocols can be extended and as I already mentioned in previous emails I will be happy to help with this extension. Best regards, Georgios > > > On 12/19/2012 08:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > > Folks, > > > > We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for > > that. > The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to > serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents > on this topic to choose from: > > > > [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 > > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > > > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for > the WG document. > > > > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. > > We > would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your > selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active > WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. > > > > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a > longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > > > > - Jouni & Julien > > ___ > > 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Dear all, After going through the 2 documents, my opinion is that [1] has an improved technical completeness (e.g. number of mobility protocols considered for best practices description, and clear identification of respective limitations) against that of ]2}. It also seems to have a more logical and consensual structure, in line with what is expectable from a "Current practices and Gap Analysis" document. For these reasons, I support the adoption of [1]. Best regards, Sérgio On 12/19/2012 08:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: Folks, We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG document. Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. - Jouni & Julien ___ 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Dear all, I went through the documents and I found that [2] provides a very clear and comprehensive description of current practices and gap analysis. Hence, I Support WG adoption for document [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01. Best wishes Philippe -Message d'origine- De : dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni Korhonen Envoyé : jeudi 3 janvier 2013 13:05 À : dmm@ietf.org Cc : Julien Laganier Objet : Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document Folks, Just a reminder that ~one more week time to voice your preference! - Jouni On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > wrote: > >> Dear chairs, >> >> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, >> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last >> meeting. Main changes from -02 are: >> >> - New section on 3GPP mobility. >> - New section on functional analysis. >> - New section on combined solution analysis. >> - Several fixes and clean-ups. >> >> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new revision >> (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just submitted. > > > This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. > > - Jouni & Julien. > > > > >> >> Thanks! >> >> Carlos >> >> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for >>> that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" >>> document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two >>> documents on this topic to choose from: >>> >>> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 >>> [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 >>> >>> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for >>> the WG document. >>> >>> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. >>> We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for >>> your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus >>> from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against >>> the other. >>> >>> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a >>> longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. >>> >>> - Jouni & Julien >>> ___ >>> 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 _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Folks, Just a reminder that ~one more week time to voice your preference! - Jouni On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > wrote: > >> Dear chairs, >> >> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, >> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last >> meeting. Main changes from -02 are: >> >> - New section on 3GPP mobility. >> - New section on functional analysis. >> - New section on combined solution analysis. >> - Several fixes and clean-ups. >> >> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new revision >> (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just submitted. > > > This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. > > - Jouni & Julien. > > > > >> >> Thanks! >> >> Carlos >> >> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for >>> that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" >>> document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two >>> documents on this topic to choose from: >>> >>> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 >>> [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 >>> >>> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for >>> the WG document. >>> >>> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. >>> We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for >>> your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus >>> from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against >>> the other. >>> >>> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a >>> longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. >>> >>> - Jouni & Julien >>> ___ >>> 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote: > Dear chairs, > > We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, > addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last > meeting. Main changes from -02 are: > > - New section on 3GPP mobility. > - New section on functional analysis. > - New section on combined solution analysis. > - Several fixes and clean-ups. > > We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new revision > (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just submitted. This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. - Jouni & Julien. > > Thanks! > > Carlos > > On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >> Folks, >> >> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for >> that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" >> document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two >> documents on this topic to choose from: >> >> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 >> [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 >> >> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the >> WG document. >> >> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. >> We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for >> your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from >> active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the >> other. >> >> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a >> longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. >> >> - Jouni & Julien >> ___ >> 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
Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Dear chairs, We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last meeting. Main changes from -02 are: - New section on 3GPP mobility. - New section on functional analysis. - New section on combined solution analysis. - Several fixes and clean-ups. We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new revision (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just submitted. Thanks! Carlos On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > Folks, > > We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. > The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to > serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on > this topic to choose from: > > [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the > WG document. > > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. > We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for > your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from > active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the > other. > > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a > longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > > - Jouni & Julien > ___ > 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] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document
Folks, We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose from: [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG document. Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. - Jouni & Julien ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
