Dear all,
searching for update on this (meanwhile expired) draft I only found the 103
minutes quoting Charlie with " We should get a solid architectural and
informational yang that should be applicable."
I also read Carlos' comment on more general applicability and wonder whether
the topic of C
Hi all,
I agree to forward the mature and very useful document to IESG.
I just detected 3 very minor nits presumably created during recent
re-formatting:
P.7
the MN-ID, Pref1 and MAAr1's address as a Proxy-CoA => the MN-ID, Pref1, and
MAAR1's address as a Proxy-CoA
5. MAAR1 stores the BCE descr
Hi Alex,
and sorry for jumping into the discussion...
From my and (AFAIK) 3GPPs understanding your smartphone is a UE - sitting on
the other side of RAN (gNB) - whereas a UPF normally is seen as UP entry (and
exit) of the 5G core (i.e. handling all UP traffic in a true CP/UP split
fashion).
Any
Hi Sri, Danny
Thanks - you are right and I agree - also with what Danny said and I am in
favor of adoption as WG draft!
Best Regards
Dirk
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 28. März 2018 16:39
To: von Hugo, Dirk ; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Call for adoption
Hi Sri,
recalling that there have been some reviews on this version -01 and the authors
already replied and promised consideration in next version -02 before London I
would recommend to have this call on the new -02 version.
Would this be possible to provide soon?
Other opinions?
Thanks!
Best Reg
Dear Carlos and co-authors, all,
thanks for the improvements!
I think the draft is quite well written and provides a good approach to real
distribution of functionalities in DMM. What might be made clearer is the
difference between partially and fully DMM you have introduced.
See also as mentione
Dear all,
my comments from review on v03 of the draft have all been considered in v06
(and maybe before). Still very few and minor nits detected as follows:
with with => with (p.4)
Figures 2 => Figure 2 (p.10)
Figures 3 => Figure 3 (p.10/p.11)
if these packets ever reaches any of them => if these
Dear Seil,
Finally I remembered that I promised a review. I am sorry for the delay!
Overall I think the draft is well written and useful. Thanks!
Some nits have been detected already by Xuan … in addition: ‘seperated’ should
be replaced by ‘separated’ and ‘and where as’ by simply ‘whereas’.
I woul
Hi Pierrick,
Thank you for the clarification!
May I recommend then to exchange also the multiple occurrences of RG in the
draft text by - why not MAG?
Your approach which I think of as mainly opting towards future mobility
management systems with multiple connections (e.g. backhauling of
vehicu
Dear co-chairs, all,
I join early adopters of the draft and agree that it should become WG document.
To the co-authors I propose to check whether all what I detected as nits/typos
really are ones:
p.3:
multihomed achitecture => multihomed architecture
using GRE as mobile tuneling => using G
Hi Alper,
Ok, thanks!
Regarding
More than one of these flags may be set on the same socket. In that
case, an IP address compliant with any one of them shall be selected.
TBD: Disallow this case?
Since here we have requirements instead of preferences unavailability of the
required address ty
Dear Alper and co-authors,
Thanks for your work!
IMO the draft is clearly written and ready for adoption though some questions
and comments came to my mind:
In the Intro Mobile IP is referenced to both client and Proxy MIP
In the context of Mobile IP [RFC5563][RFC6275][RFC5213][RFC5944],
- but in
Dear Marco and WT,
Thanks for all the work! IMO the draft is quite clearly written and covers many
details on messages and attributes for node configuration according to policies
- I didn't find missing ones so far ... ;-)
I only have few comments / nits detected so far:
P.3:
These
requirement
Thanks Pierrick for the pointer!
And FWIW also Marcos draft-liebsch-dmm-framework-03 addresses deployment and
architecture aspects for evaluating various approaches
BR
Dirk
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of pierrick.se...@orange.com
Sent: Mittwoch, 23.
Dear Marco, all,
I think the idea of describing mobility management functions in a generic and
modular way can help to allow for fair comparison of different existing
approaches and new extensions towards fulfillment of DMM requirements. As your
draft shows also routing-protocol based approache
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 ...
Dear all,
I am also in favour of WG adoption of the draft since it discusses very
detailed motivation, problems, and requirements of DMM approach.
To the authors: I propose to take in to consideration correction of some very
minor nits as follows in the next version:
Page 6:
In Fig. 1 beside LM
17 matches
Mail list logo