Re: [dna] [DNA] DNA working group completion

Suresh Krishnan <> Fri, 16 October 2009 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BCB3A68FF for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caquLLG7fjhw for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BFF3A657C for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9GLUduW005105; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:30:41 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:29:54 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:29:53 -0500
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.375.2; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:29:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:29:42 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2009 21:29:53.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCBA8040:01CA4EA7]
Cc: DNA <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [dna] [DNA] DNA working group completion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNA working group mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:30:49 -0000

Hi Jari,

On 09-10-16 06:08 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Now that the simple DNA document has been sent to IETF last call, I 
> wanted to talk to you about the status of the working group. It has 
> taken a long time, but we are finally there! I am sure there will be 
> small issues in the IESG review, but I do not see any major problems. 
> Thank you everyone who made this happen, Suresh you in particular have 
> done a lot of work on this!
> But lets talk about the next steps. My inclination would be to say that 
> we've completed our main task and that we can close the working group. A 
> successful closure. Any follow-up documents (tentative, the experimental 
> full protocol) can be submitted as individual submissions and I'd be 
> happy to take them forward. But watching the energy level of the group 
> dissipate over the years, I do not believe we have a reason to keep a 
> formal working group alive. Obviously the mailing list should be kept alive.

Sounds like a good plan. I fully support the idea of closing the WG :-). 
One thing I would like to be different is to progress the WG items 
(tentative and informational protocol) as WG documents to the IESG 
(as-is) immediately and then close the WG down. I feel that these 
documents have gone through a lot of working group review in their 
lifetime and by treating them as individual submissions they would 
appear to be immature and not adequately reviewed. Any followup can be 
done on the mailing list. What do you think?