Subject: [mif] Call for WG adoption

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:44:47 +0800

Hello all,

Please express your opinion whether you would like to have below draft
adopted as the WG document?
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-05.txt

Thanks,

-cochairs of WG

---

From: "Cao,Zhen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:16:20 +0800

Hello all,

I am support of adoption. It is a good architectural work and contains
guidance to help stack cope with multiple provision domains.

Thanks,
-zhen

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Hui Deng <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:52:07 +0100 (CET)

> guidance to help stack cope with multiple provision domains.

I have read through this document today and I support adoption. It's 
valuable and further work should be done as WG document.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:34:46 +0900

> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-05.txt

This is outstanding work. I strongly support adoption.

Regards,
Lorenzo

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:51:10 +0100

I support adoption.

Nit: "ortunneling" should split.

Architecturally  speaking, I wonder whether the semantics of querying
the obtention of a PVD based on an IP address is described.

Let me explain why.

We are considering locally the expression of an energy metric in a PVD.
  This would for example be sent by the network to the mobile telling it
that one of its interfaces is that much energy-hungry.

But the other way around should also be possible: a mobile may request
an interface to the network how many Joules are needed to reach a
particular IP destination.

For that to work, there would be need for the mobile to query the
network using an IP address as key, and obtaining a particular PVD.
This is akin to the option of sending an Neighbor Solicitation for a
particular Target address.

I had a look at the section 2.4 "PVD Identifying/Naming" but I could not
find an indication that would consider that a PVD Identifier be an IP
address.

Alex

Le 07/01/2014 06:44, Hui Deng a écrit :
> Hello all, Please express your opinion whether you would like to have
> below draft adopted as the WG document?
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-05.txt Thanks,
> -cochairs of WG
>
>
> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:55:06 +0800

Hello all,

I saw the support from the mailing list,  plus design team's support, so
the concensus has been achieved,
please authors help to submit the draft with working group name.

thanks a lot

-Hui

2014/1/13 Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>