IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] No MANET Meeting Scheduled for Yokohama

John Dowdell <john.dowdell.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <john.dowdell.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36821A92E1 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 2-RiVntnj0U2 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::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 CCEB11A92BB for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lffv3 with SMTP id v3so10367929lff.0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QfdKMG/QaimwC22Uo8tP22cjHNhHYXY7xXiTnP7pT5w=; b=uprABLN7VRYcgmZta4VscPT8YqyUnk1i9eLspjipLQim+2P3r45kYTr4enCRvKqctO bPM/pqz+4tVk2gZsAPuNKZAO8vuEyLmgkn+4m3g6H8+k6LHwT3Gbhwk9U50t6rwo1OJH /j6BXyDlRC7q7+no8BvlJ4ynC8I0cL2eX1NtyHid90qqv8MSMcdCT0Aq1HYl5ZAyF07T A7iPF3jv7dV6uY9OAwl/C43krYMfnZmoJJSgVg+nTPGGlnwA6dKVRFLZhk+PhHCLDZr9 S2tubjSz69kitxJ/CM1HW4D92Kc30DMESigdY8AX14kEmJ5KyzgXs8h+ZlUgekG9KOG9 Bc5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.148.204 with SMTP id w195mr1858875lfd.77.1445366683891; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.80.194 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <72796CAF-F7CD-4DCE-9F83-859E596050D0@thomasclausen.org>
References: <CALtoyonvvA212pMrG9Oim+BkgTkM8fLzeqyg55+1Z9R6WoCXxw@mail.gmail.com> <72796CAF-F7CD-4DCE-9F83-859E596050D0@thomasclausen.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:44:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEhHF6WtF91dArJK0h=6B4s23LcmXhtD0AVw2mDnNSqKmn-_XA@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Dowdell <john.dowdell.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11401d74c37f4f05228da74b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ttydkWQ74NWdW7f2z7ehMAtlR_4>
Cc: "manet-ads@tools.ietf.org" <manet-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] No MANET Meeting Scheduled for Yokohama
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:44:47 -0000

Given also that both AODVv2 and DLEP are likely to be asking for last call,
how do the chairs propose to move forwards in decision making? Since there
is no meeting, we are unable to ask for last call in the meeting, nor do we
have a forum to present the not inconsiderable progress that both drafts
have made.

What now?

John

On Saturday, 10 October 2015, Thomas Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote:

> Given the significant volume of outstanding unresolved, and
> raised-but-un-addressed, issues with current WG deliverables, and given
> that rechartering has been announced but never discussed on the list, it
> would have been more than reasonable to agree with the WG (by way of the
> mailing list) in well in advance -- rather than for the chair to
> unilaterally decide to cancel any further discussions at the WG meeting
> *after* the deadline for "final agenda" has lapsed.
>
> As far as I understand, in the IETF WG decisions are made by way of
> consensus among a populace larger than the WG chairs.
>
>
> Thomas
>
> > On 10 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello WG participants,
> >
> > Just an FYI - there's no MANET meeting scheduled for the upcoming IETF
> in Yokohama. The consensus amongst the chairs was that we need to progress
> the AODVv2 and DLEP drafts, *then* proceed with a re-charter. Given that,
> the thought was that a face-to-face isn't necessary; the work can and
> should progress on the list.
> >
> > Both of the pending drafts (AODVv2 and DLEP) have new revisions coming -
> most likely this next week. Please stay tuned for updates, and your review
> & comments will be welcome and appreciated.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stan
> > _______________________________________________
> > manet mailing list
> > manet@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email