Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04

From: Wen Luo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:02:22 +0800

Dear Chairs and All:

I Support this draft to be adopted.

B.T.W. maybe something wrong with my email box, I have already send this
email twice but it just tell me failed :(

Thanks!

>From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012 at gmail.com>
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:34:46 -0500
>Subject: [multimob] WG Adoption call for
draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04
>To: multimob at ietf.org
>Hi all,
>
>
> This mail starts a working group adoption call on
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04.txt
>
> for Experimental status.
>
> Please reply
>
> a) support,
>
> or
>
>
> b) not support
>
> this adoption call.
>
> The call will expire on Friday August 24, 2012.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chairs

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:04:48 -0700

Responding as an individual.

In my opinion we should not adopt this draft at this point.

This draft hasn't been discussed in a while (at least not from I can
remember), and we should have more discussion in the WG to understand
better whether we need multiple fast handover solutions. We need to
understand better what are the pros and cons of the different
solutions, and see if they are sufficiently different that multiple
solutions are needed, or whether a single solution can be made to
sufficiently cover the more important use-cases.

I'm not saying that this draft should never be adopted. But I don't
think we've had sufficient discussion in the WG. Based on my knowledge
right now, I don't know what is the best path forward.

Stig

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:25:48 +0100

I support Stig's opinion.

Actually, we did not get much attention for this progress regardless of the
draft's superiority. I know main active MULTIMOB folks didn't show their
minds yet since it was requested. I believe we need more discussion about
technical aspects of candidate drafts as long as it takes.

As another suggestion, I think we need to have "requirement" or "problem
statement" before getting started discussion for future items, if MULTIMOB
is re-chartered. Since it was not made, we often confuse in the way how to
work, e.g. solution use-case, solution scope or boundaries not to cross,
etc.

Best Regards,

Seil

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Stig Venaas
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 6:05 PM
To: Wen Luo
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for
draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04

This draft hasn't been discussed in a while (at least not from I can
remember), and we should have more discussion in the WG to understand better
whether we need multiple fast handover solutions. We need to understand
better what are the pros and cons of the different solutions, and see if
they are sufficiently different that multiple solutions are needed, or
whether a single solution can be made to sufficiently cover the more
important use-cases.

I'm not saying that this draft should never be adopted. But I don't think
we've had sufficient discussion in the WG. Based on my knowledge right now,
I don't know what is the best path forward.

Stig
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob