Indeed. My disappointment is not with the draft but with the current state of mobility protocol deployment.
And personally, I think I prefer dynamic DNS update. ;) -Pete On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > Pete: which protocols would you make mandatory? Personally I prefer > SCTP and/or application-specific quick reconnect :-) (my point being > there's no consensus, alas, but we're letting a hundred flowers bloom) > > Scott > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 13:50, Pete McCann <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd >> or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11 >> Reviewer: Pete McCann >> Review Date: 07-13-2011 >> IETF LC End Date: >> IESG Telechat date: 07-14-2011 >> >> Summary: Ready >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: >> >> I am disappointed by the section on Mobility which makes no recommendation on >> mandatory-to-support mobility protocols. However, given the current >> state of things the section as written is reasonable. >> >> Nits/editorial comments: None >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
