Subject: [netlmm] #84: Statement on Mobile IP is unnecessary

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:17:28 -0000

#84: Statement on Mobile IP is unnecessary
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  minor                         |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  1.0                     
 Keywords:  REQ draft                     |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Fred Templin says:

 3) Section 2.8, second paragraph, sentence beginning: "While Mobile
 IPv6 is clearly...", this seems to be making too strong of an
 assumption for MIPv6 before the global mobility management problem
 statement and gap analysis are completed. Suggest dropping this
 sentence.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/84>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

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

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:52:14 -0000

#84: Statement on Mobile IP is unnecessary
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                        |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  minor                         |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:  fixed                         |    Keywords:  REQ draft               
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  => fixed
  * status:  new => closed

Comment:

 Removed the assumption about Mobile IP but kept the rest of the sentence.
 The part about proprietary protocols is important, and I added another
 qualifier for "wireless link technology specific" protocols, since some of
 the SDOs that are interested in this protocol have need for backward
 compatibility.