Re: [manet] Ready for WGLC: Advancing draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization & draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis

As long as we get the ball rolling, I am more than happy with what Stan proposes, and what he already has set in motion. Thank you, Stan. 

-- 
Thomas Heide Clausen
http://www.thomasclausen.org

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for 
  experiments, and they wander off through equation 
  after equation, and eventually  build a structure 
  which has no relation to reality."
 - Nikola Tesla, 
    Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934

> On 29 juil. 2014, at 17:21, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
> 
> Much as I want things to go as quickly as possible, I have to agree with Stan that 6779bis should be accepted as a WG document first. WGLC on both (we’ll have the updated drafts ready) directly thereafter will be good.
>  
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Information Assurance Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com
> 
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>  
> From: Stan Ratliff (sratliff) [mailto:sratliff@cisco.com] 
> Sent: 29 July 2014 15:36
> To: Thomas Clausen
> Cc: manet; <manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; manet-ads; Christopher Dearlove
> Subject: Re: [manet] Ready for WGLC: Advancing draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization & draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis
>  
>  
> *** WARNING ***
> This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
> Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
> For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here.
> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process.
> 
> Thomas, 
>  
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Thomas Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear WG Chairs, co-authors, all,
>  
> As indicated in Toronto, the authors believe that the remaining issue with draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization was how to properly do the updates to the MIB module of RFC6779.
>  
> We believe that Toronto confirmed that the way forward was to do an RFC6779bis document, which reflects the MIB considerations section (Section 6) from draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization, which the WG already adopted, into RFC6779.
>  
> As Ulrich indicated in his recent mail, this is what draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis does — nothing more, nothing less.
>  
> I believe that with this issue resolved, draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization & draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis essentially are ready for WGLC. 
>  
> I don't agree with you here, mainly because:
> 1. draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis-00 technically isn't even a WG document,
> 2. You state the documents are ready for WGLC, then outline a proposal for updating them. I'd rather see any known edits go into WGLC, instead of either running concurrently with WGLC. 
>  
> Here's what I propose going forward: 
> 1. I'll issue an email calling for WG adoption of draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis
> 2. If the WG adopts draft-clausen-rfc6779bis, then you can update draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization (or, if you feel certain about WG adoption, you are free to update nhdp-optimization at any time)
> 3. If the WG adopts draft-clausen-rfc6779bis, I will then call for WGLC on both documents, once the update to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization is done. 
>  
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> 
>  
> As a reminder, both documents aims publication as an Proposed Standard RFCs.
>  
> Procedurally, I would like to enter a rapid succession of:
>  
> 1)
> Submission of draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis-00 as draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-00
>  
> 2)
> Submission of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-01, with the only difference to -00
> being section 6 removed, and replaced by a reference to 
> draft-clausen-manet-rfc6779bis-00 as draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-00
>  
> 3)
> A WGLC being issued for both these documents, concurrently.
>  
> WG Chairs, would you kindly let us know your thoughts on this matter, at your earliest convenience, so that we may aim at a WGLC soon, such that the WG will have visible progress to report at the RTG Area Open Meeting?
>  
> Respectfully,
>  
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>  
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet