Marco, Jouni,
The categorization I provided was for the "solution space".
Framework, and deployment models are not solution documents.
If I'm missing something, and also for any other docs I missed in the
categorization, folks please also suggest where they should fit in when sending
the I-D na
Jouni,
>>
>> I've updated the list with the I-Ds suggested by Behcet/Fred/Jouni.
>>
>> Please see below for my opinions about how each category relates to the
>> overall work.
>> Comments welcome.
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *1. Per-flow IP address configuration according to mobility needs*
>
> "Exp
Hi Jouni,
On Jul 20, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>
> Ain't that quite visible from the agenda:
>
> 1.1) have a look at the re-chartering text that it is roughly
> acceptable for everyone in the room. We can even do some
> minor online editing if there is something that requires
Alper,
7/21/2014 5:38 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Jouni,
I've updated the list with the I-Ds suggested by Behcet/Fred/Jouni.
Please see below for my opinions about how each category relates to the
overall work.
Comments welcome.
*
*
*
*
*1. Per-flow IP address configuration according to mobil
Hi Jouni,
2014/07/19 19:12、Jouni Korhonen のメール：
>
> Ain't that quite visible from the agenda:
>
> 1.1) have a look at the re-chartering text that it is roughly
> acceptable for everyone in the room. We can even do some
> minor online editing if there is something that requires
> immedia
Hi all,
I am unable to understand why we are complicating life so much.
It seems like we forget the fact that this WG existed since 2012 and
many things happened since then.
Initially we had this simple categorization:
MIP-based approaches, those that are requiring a client at the MN,
PMIP-base
