Re: [MEXT] Consensus call: Binding revocation will NOT use GSM

[Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota at kddilabs.jp>]

Hi,

I agree that the Binding Revocation massage should directly use the
mobility header.

I also think that we should better create a rough guideline about when
to use the GSM framework. For example, if the meaning of the message is
not directly related to mobility (e.g. policy, user profile,
encapsulating other messages, etc.) or is limited to a specific context
(e.g. SDO dependent), then GSM should be used, or something like that.
This type of guideline does not have to be documented, but at least we
should have a common understanding to avoid further confusion.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

Julien Laganier wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> During the 2nd MEXT session, there was consensus amongst the session 
> attendees that Binding Revocation shall NOT use the GSM framework. 
> Rather, the consensus was that binding revocation shall use directly 
> the mobility header and allocates its own MH types values.
> 
> Hereby we'd like to confirm that room consensus on the mailing list. If 
> you haven't expressed an opinion during the session, please send a note 
> to the list stating whether you agree or disagree with that room 
> consensus by 2008-08-14.
> 
> -- julien & marcelo, MEXT chairs
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext