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

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

Anyway, lets include it when we re-charter.

Vijay

> 
> If the WG agrees to include 4285bis as part of our rechartering, and our 
> new charter is approved, then of course it is fine that 4285bis becomes 
> a MEXT WG draft.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> I wasn't making a statement on the rechartering aspect, just saying it's 
> currently not in MEXT charter and should thus not be a MEXT WG draft 
> (until it's in an approved new MEXT charter).
> 
> Best,
> 
> --julien

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