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

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

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