RE: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official WG adoption ofinternet drafts

[gabriel montenegro <[e-mail]>]

We decided to err on the side of prudency and have a review of the security
related drafts before official adoption.  "Adoption" is not
a pressing issue (we're fine as long as we do that before WG last call) so
this sanity check should not affect schedule at all. We've already requested
the MOBDIR review (some previous review work has already been done on at least
a couple of the drafts, which will accelerate the process).

-gabriel

--- Lakshminath Dondeti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At 10:44 AM 4/11/2006, [e-mail] wrote:
> >Yes, there was approval on the idea of proceeding with consensus on WG
> >approval first, then mobdir review.
> 
> Right, this was my understanding too.
> 
> >Now, since there does not seem to be
> >WG consensus, are you suggest we do not do the mobdir at all?
> 
> I don't understand the first part.  Why do you say that there does 
> not seem to be WG consensus?  The latest I recall from this 
> discussion was that there was approval and consensus to make this a 
> WG draft first.
> 
> I am not saying no Mobdir review.  Let's make it a WG draft and then 
> have the Mobdir review the draft.
> 
> >I see
> >going to mobdir review as a way to improve the draft to increase the
> >chances to reach a consensus as soon as possible.
> 
> No disagreement here, but you seem to have a different order of steps 
> in mind than I do.  I am wondering how you reached your conclusion.
> 
> thanks and regards,
> Lakshminath
> 
> >Stefano
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ext Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:35 PM
> > >To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-SIR/Dallas);
> > >[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > >Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official WG
> > >adoption ofinternet drafts
> > >
> > >Hi Stefano,
> > >
> > >Thanks for your message.  Once the proposal to "make the draft
> > >a WG item and then ask for Mobdir review" was made, I recall
> > >seeing approvals and no disagreements.  So, I am still puzzled!
> > >
> > >thanks and regards,
> > >Lakshminath
> > >
> > >At 09:54 AM 4/11/2006, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >>Lakshminath,
> > >>your recollection of the original discussion about the call for
> > >>consensus is correct. However, since there have been several comments
> > >>or questions on the draft, we do not feel there is consensus on
> > >>approving the draft as WG draft. We believe that a reasonable way to
> > >>ensure those questions are clarified and that we get good
> > >input on the
> > >>draft is to have the mobdir review the draft first.
> > >>
> > >>Stefano
> > >>
> > >> >-----Original Message-----
> > >> >From: ext Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >> >Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:50 AM
> > >> >To: gabriel montenegro; [e-mail]
> > >> >Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official WG adoption
> > >> >ofinternet drafts
> > >> >
> > >> >Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> >I have a different recollection of the "consensus" on
> > >> >draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.  The order was,
> > >approve the
> > >> >draft as a WG item and then ask for a mobdir review.  Did I miss
> > >> >further discussions (offline ones perhaps) on this topic?
> > >> >
> > >> >regards,
> > >> >Lakshminath
> > >> >
> > >> >At 07:48 AM 4/11/2006, gabriel montenegro wrote:
> > >> >>Folks,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thanks for the comments and participation in this discussion. In
> > >> >>general, there was good support for adoption of the proposed
> > >> >documents,
> > >> >>but it seems that for the security-related drafts, there were
> > >> >negative
> > >> >>comments and discussion than for the others.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>It was also suggested that a mobility directorate review
> > >would be a
> > >> >>good thing. This is actually a common practice predating this
> > >> >>discussion: new drafts being adopted by "mobility" working groups
> > >> >>are requested for review by mobdir. So we will request that
> > >> >review for all our adopted drafts.
> > >> >>However, we feel that given the comments on the security
> > >drafts, we
> > >> >>would like to have reviews for those drafts before actual adoption.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>In short, the drafts we're adopting right now are:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rev-XX.txt
> > >> >>    based on draft-koodli-mipshop-rfc4068bis-00.txt
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-XX.txt
> > >> >>    based on draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-02.txt
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-XX.txt
> > >> >>    based on draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-02.txt
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Next versions of the above drafts should adopt the official
> > >> >name shown above.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>The drafts whose adoption is pending a mobility directorate
> > >> >review are:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-XX.txt
> > >> >>    based on  draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send-XX.txt
> > >> >>    based on draft-kempf-mobopts-handover-key-01.txt (currently
> > >> >> expired)
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt
> > >> >>    based on draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Again, we will request review of all the above by mobdir.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>-chairs
> > >> >>
> > >> >>--- gabriel montenegro <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Folks,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > In today's meeting we talked about 4 potential items up for
> > >> >> adoption as official
> > >> >> > working
> > >> >> > groups. Talking with folks after the meeting, we've decided to
> > >> >> add two more to the list
> > >> >> > of items we'll ask the WG whether we should adopt. This is the
> > >> >> follow-up email to
> > >> >> > today's
> > >> >> > discussion, to make sure we ask this on the mailing list.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > So the question to the WG is: Should we adopt the following
> > >> >> documents as official WG
> > >> >> > items (based on the individual drafts as noted below)?:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 1. draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rev-XX.txt
> > >> >> > based on draft-koodli-mipshop-rfc4068bis-00.txt
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 2. draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-XX.txt
> > >> >> > based on  draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 3. draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send-XX.txt
> > >> >> > based on draft-kempf-mobopts-handover-key-01.txt
> > >> >(currently expired)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 4. draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-XX.txt
> > >> >> > based on draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-02.txt
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 5. draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-XX.txt based on
> > >> >> > draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-02.txt
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 6. draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt based on
> > >> >> > draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Please send comments one way or another through April 4, 2006.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > chairs
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>__________________________________________________
> > >> >>Do You Yahoo!?
> > >> >>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > >> >>http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >> >>
> > >> >>_______________________________________________
> > >> >>Mipshop mailing list
> > >> >>[e-mail]
> > >> >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >_______________________________________________
> > >> >Mipshop mailing list
> > >> >[e-mail]
> > >> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>Mipshop mailing list
> > >>[e-mail]
> > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > >
> > >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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