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

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thierry,

While I'm sympathetic to your view that "MEXT is not a new group, it 
inherits from MIP6, NEMO and MonAmi6 so former charters and conclusions 
should be taken into account", let me point out that we are ultimately 
bound by our charter and IETF processes, i.e. documented WG rules and 
guidelines. There would be no formal basis to do otherwise. MEXT is a 
WG on its own with its own charter, and should abide by it.

We are currently in the process of revising our charter, and I encourage 
anyone to put forth items they think are missing. Once we agree on a 
revised charter that can be sent to IESG for approval and that charter 
is approved the WG will be in position to adopt drafts.

The situation with NEMO prefix delegation drafts is however different 
since we are chartered to develop *one* solution. That mean we'll have 
to make a choice sooner or later. It is somehat orthogonal to that 
choice itself whether we adopt both drafts now and decide later which 
one gets sent to IESG, or whether we choose now one and adopt it as WG 
draft. Let me suggest that it is better to decide sooner so that we can 
concentrate on one draft that will be one of the output of this WG. 
Regarding the explanation why MEXT is not adopting any of the two 
drafts yet, I don't care too much and am satisfied with either your or 
my explanation. Now we can argue about that and also about adopting 
both, but maybe we'd be better working on NEMO prefix delegation :)

Best,

--julien

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> >> Well, there are documents in the former WGs which may have been
> >> accepted as WG docs AFTER the MEXT charter was first drafted. If
> >> that was the case (i.e. the document was accepted by the WG and
> >> the AD, and listed as draft-ietf- on the WG charter), MEXT should
> >> inherit the document too... (the doc was anyway accepted at some
> >> point in time; it doesn't matter much if that was during the MEXT
> >> chartering process or the MIP6, NEMO or MonAmi6 process. The same
> >> applies for a document for which a WG may have decided to drop it
> >> for some reasons.
> >
> > This is exactly what happened, with one motivated exception (see
> > below): any WG draft of a former WG which has a corresponding
> > deliverable in our charter was taken as a MEXT WG draft (see mails
> > we chairs have been sending).
> >
> > The single exception that rule pertains to prefix delegation for
> > NEMO. Our charter has only one deliverable for a NEMO prefix
> > delegation mechanism, but there were two NEMO WG drafts related to
> > that. We decided that since there's no clear consensus for any of
> > the two solutions, we will not adopt *yet* any of them, and rather
> > wait for the WG to gain consensus on *one* prefix delegation
> > mechanism, at which point we adopt the corresponding draft.
>
> Agreed but a proper wording would read  "We decided to remove the
> current NEMO prefix delegation drafts as WG items since there is no
> clear consensus for any of the two adopted solutions" since drafts
> WERE WG items.
>
> > The above exception is well motivated: we as a WG should follow our
> > charter.
>
> I would just like to make sure that former decisions are deprecated
> correctly (to me, MEXT is not a new group, it inherits from MIP6,
> NEMO and MonAmi6 so former charters and conclusions should be taken
> into account).
>
> So, if there was an item in the former group charter, and that item
> has just been incidently removed or wrongly worded while drafting the
> MEXT charter, we should not simply stick to "the MEXT charter says
> that" but the history.
>
> >> Jari, please inlight us about the procedure here.
> >>
> >> The same reasoning applies to the NEMO Prefix Delegation draft.
> >> However, the discussion we had on the list and during the WG seems
> >> to indicate that the 2 current solutions didn't receive enough
> >> feedback in the past, and there may be other ways. So, in that
> >> specific case, it is useful to reconsider the document (but the 2
> >> were accepted as NEMO WG docs some time in the past).
> >
> > See above. Seems to me that you should be satisfied about the
> > current situation.
>
> I'm satisfied with the "We decided to remove the current NEMO prefix
> delegation drafts as WG items since there is no clear consensus for
> any of the two adopted solutions" but not with  "we will not adopt
> *yet* any of them" (the draft was already adopted).
>
>
> Thierry.
>
> > Best,
> >
> > --julien
> >
> >> Julien Laganier wrote:
> >>> Hi Raj,
> >>>
> >>> MEXT WG should work on items it is chartered to work on. 4285bis
> >>> is clearly not included in our current charter, thus it shouldn't
> >>> be a MEXT WG document.
> >>>
> >>> MEXT wise, a way forward is to include 4285bis as part of our
> >>> rechartering.
> >>>
> >>> --julien
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Basavaraj Patil wrote:
> >>>> RFC4285bis is a minor bug fix w.r.t the key length.
> >>>> If MEXT does not want to make this a WG doc, we can maybe
> >>>> progress it as a MIP6 WG doc.
> >>>> It has already completed WG LC in August, 07.
> >>>> Hence I have no problem forwarding it to the IESG for processing
> >>>> as a MIP6 WG doc.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Raj
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/18/07 1:01 PM, "ext Vijay Devarapalli"
> >>>>
> >>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Julien,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regarding the other changes in the document (for example
> >>>>> removing the IESG note) should of course be discussed on the
> >>>>> MEXT mailing list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>         draft-ietf-mip6-generic-notification-message
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thought we concluded we missed this document somehow and
> >>>>> needs to be added to the charter?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vijay
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> MEXT mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> MEXT mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext



_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext