IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 20 June 2017 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6A813147A for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mNOtf1Op7SOb for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F0C7131477 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c11so40293453wrc.3 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3M3t6IkzEej1UfTYyxPtAbKCV+M3wsk+U3U/TFGc/ZA=; b=LZ7G3xJA/nw6Ljg374Yk0ULcvYgGmA1CaCu/OZ69BvTQMCeCG1YzXKFVgEiDbyzy7y gd2RnA98X/mrkQp/yuCqffZe004XgfVNRpR/nojCcuE0CnVVcA/jcOvKgonHrOF9JtJ+ y10gxIrzinFeU0At/LtIl6e4J0kkH+SkukssT+Dai5YchydRSEO0mJsxVaS8Z/9Utvza a02hb4OVi4UShpts0Er+pL4xIVQXa0ZtCH/bSd1Yn8yPlwCCsWiU1jLmw3OKslFasSgy TohucQhC/osKxTStVFX4LvNOH/Eo0luCKN+Xjx5U4yBOpXgxFeRqBW+/2NBWyu09og6N 2YvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:date :in-reply-to:references:organization:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3M3t6IkzEej1UfTYyxPtAbKCV+M3wsk+U3U/TFGc/ZA=; b=sid394L9Lmv/LMpS3M6O2T2PmWuJPOtVPODFC3N0GNBWlU7uXC9JUKkWBu/ta4+dVE 60tcIlueTOukbT2u74eJy0gDFyQ74It/JippDGp1NglCXee12nBwPtjOsA4cfNiMmLjK PqkNPaU+4YBf2H1HxZ6dchxIFxg0qQ1fjdsO4+Z8wcFGHsIddnvyhFIo90xC4sQM/ds0 8oOk8SGwGw2NpbSM2mCUbLRJ8mWUDboKGNcBD1s9yaMZvfaAAsGPQN1DvZigjzOUfjeT oYtHhJ68SQWswD4zg406QjNtbxcLLs7QdOYlhHcBiEFmq51GZN/lat1L+2bWPv6uzeP0 greg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwbPgbkSw1GuuJTTxIblQLhhA7wL7JNlYbUx0AWWDAjxlvFe3qd Tt8bZGqZ24cxTymzoFQ=
X-Received: by 10.28.236.134 with SMTP id h6mr3171570wmi.1.1497972730842; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acorde ([2001:720:410:1010:e543:a76d:b86f:b2c5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c27sm3373183wrb.44.2017.06.20.08.32.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1497972729.3352.65.camel@it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, its <its@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:32:09 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CA50A382-F591-4A33-BAF9-1903E107BE02@vigilsec.com>
References: <CA50A382-F591-4A33-BAF9-1903E107BE02@vigilsec.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/RJ3V6_2OYfcYgrlTkRc-nxfcpSU>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:34:52 -0000

Hi,

So far we have only received 3 opinions on this adoption. Please,
express your opinion (in favor or against adoption, preferably with
some comments in both cases).

Thanks!

Carlos & Russ

On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 09:59 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> The IPWAVE WG charter calls for the group to publish an Informational
> document:
> 
>    This group will work on an informational document
>    that will explain the state of the art in the field and describe
>    the use cases that will use IPv6 in order to focus the work of
>    the group.
> 
> Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-
> survey
> as the starting point for this deliverable?
> 
> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-net
> working-survey/
> 
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email