Re: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official WG adoption ofinternetdrafts

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Ok, sounds fine. I have no objection to the additional review.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "gabriel montenegro" <[e-mail]>
To: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[e-mail]>; 
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:20 AM
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official WG adoption 
ofinternetdrafts


> 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
> 



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