Re: [MEXT] MEXT WG drafts (re)naming and submission

Hi Vijay,

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Julien Laganier wrote:
> > Hi Vijay,
> >
> > On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> >> Julien Laganier wrote:
> >>> Previous WG drafts that the WG hasn't agreed to take as WG
> >>> drafts, or have no corresponding work item in MEXT charter must
> >>> not be submitted as draft-ietf-{mext,mip6,nemo,monami6}-*. Of
> >>> course authors are free to submit them as individual submission,
> >>> e.g. draft-*-mext-*:
> >>>
> >>>         draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation
> >>>         draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd
> >>>         draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis
> >>
> >> 4285bis mainly fixes a bug (key length) in RFC 4285. In fact I
> >> thought it was ready for a MIP6 WG last call. Raj, please correct
> >> me if I am wrong. I think this document should be a MEXT WG
> >> document.
> >
> > This is the MEXT WG and we are not chartered to work on maintaining
> > 4285, thus I think this should not be a MEXT WG document.
>
> But it was a MIP6 WG document that completed WG last call and was
> about to be forwarded to the IESG. 

Too bad that wasn't done then.

We're now the MEXT WG and we do have a charter in which 4285bis isn't 
included. It doesn't make sense to adopt as WG draft a draft discussing 
something we're not chartered to work on. In that aspect, it somehow 
doesn't matter what happened in mip6.

> So it doesn't make sense to me to make it an individual submission
> now. 

Whether or not it makes sense to make it an invidual submission is 
irrelevant to that discussion.

> Anyway, lets include it when we re-charter.

Sure. It's on our list.

--julien

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext