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

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"
<vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com> 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
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

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