As of now, we do not intend to standardise anything.
The intended status for this draft is informational as indicated.
The system described in the draft has actually been around for quite a
while at the IRTF.
It might appear of immense scope and novelty to you as you might not be
aware about the
IMHO, there's no such a thing as a wrong question. But you can always ask
another one.
And BTW, I answered already to one of the questions you redo. Yes, there
will be another draft on transport.
It is not ready but I can have a technical report right before the IETF
week and I might give a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Luca Muscariello <
luca.muscarie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I answered to 3. Please dig into the reply for the full answer. In short
> it is no, it does not.
> And BTW, I am aware I'm not providing any analysis and that I'm not trying
> to resolve any big thing
> in
I answered to 3. Please dig into the reply for the full answer. In short it
is no, it does not.
And BTW, I am aware I'm not providing any analysis and that I'm not trying
to resolve any big thing
in an email thread discussion, I never said I was.
The objective is to answer to clarification
Luca,
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:46 AM, Luca Muscariello <
luca.muscarie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These solutions are not all isomorphic and comparison requires some
> careful taxonomy first.
> The -01 version of the draft Kalyani is taking care of will include that
> and will definitely help to
These solutions are not all isomorphic and comparison requires some careful
taxonomy first.
The -01 version of the draft Kalyani is taking care of will include that
and will definitely help to
compare things.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane
Let's
