Subject: [netlmm] More netlmm drafts

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:18:46 +0100

There are more personal drafts  in the netlmm space, version 00, 
available in the I-D repository:

draft-jeong-netlmm-ipv4-support-req-00.txt
draft-lee-netlmm-nemo-ps-00.txt

Both these two are good problem statement drafts in the netlmm extension 
space.  The 'starting point' drafts should take them into account, and 
leave eg IPv4 out of the base.

draft-russert-netlmm-hmap-00.txt
draft-taniuchi-netlmm-mpa-proxymipv6-00.txt
draft-zhao-netlmm-miptype-00.txt

These three drafts talk to various extent about netlmm extensions.  All 
these should be left out from the base 'starting point' draft.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:09:09 -0800 (PST)

Dear Chairs,
   Can you please explain what are the open issues? Open issues with respect to which draft? How is it going to help to discuss these "predetermined" open issues in selecting which draft to go ahead with?
  Can you please explain why the handover support is not an open issue?
  Can you please explain why PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions is an open issue?
  BTW, PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions is an issue subject to heated debate in SDO mailing lists, it is an interworking issue and its relationship to IETF is quite tangential.
  IPv4 support has been proposed in draft-sgundave, it is not about netlmm4, so people are suggesting that it is a feature/ extension and it should be discussed separately.
  IPv6 support discussion belongs to the slot given to one of the drafts.
  MN ID requirements agenda item has already been contested.
  Here goes 105 minutes of the agenda.
  
Kind regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]; Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Cc: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:50:10 PM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] More netlmm drafts

Hi,
We do understand that there are a number of drafts submitted on
NETLMM-related topics. At this point, we see that making progress on the
base protocol and getting it to completion is the most important task at
hand. That is why the meeting time in Prague has been dedicated solely
to discussing the open issues on the protocol. If we did not have
sufficient time to discuss the open issues and instead split the time to
discuss extensions, we are then going to require more time to get the
base protocol done and that is undesirable, given the urgency that we
are seeing for the base protocol from several end users of this
protocol. 

We apologize for the lack of meeting time for the extensions discussion.
We hope that everyone can understand the situation and continue to
discuss these extensions on the mailing list for the time being. 

Thanks,
Vidya

snipped the rest.