Discussion of Controversial PMIP Extensions
draft-tsirtsis-netext-controversy-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | George Tsirtsis | ||
| Last updated | 2009-04-16 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document discusses the recent controversy regarding PMIP extensions for inter-technology handoffs and multihoming. Many of the arguments presented below have been discussed in NETEXT BOF and subsequent discussions on the mailing list. They are written here in an attempt to explain why some of the proposed PMIP extensions are so controversial.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)