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

[gabriel montenegro <[e-mail]>]

Yes, please do so and let us know when that is done so we can continue the review.

thanks,

-gabriel

--- "Narayanan, Vidya" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Gabriel,
> Sure, we can do that. However, we do need to update the AAA handover
> keys draft based on details we had consensus on from prior raised issues
> - all the details were presented at IETF65, but the I-D itself has not
> been updated yet. It would be better if the MOBDIR reviewed the revised
> version to avoid the same questions that have already been discussed. 
> 
> We can try to revise the draft and post a new version within the next
> couple of weeks to get this going - please let us know if that is an
> option. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Vidya 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gabriel montenegro [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:21 AM
> > To: Dondeti, Lakshminath; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > 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
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
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