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

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

Well, there are documents in the former WGs which may have been accepted 
as WG docs AFTER the MEXT charter was first drafted. If that was the 
case (i.e. the document was accepted by the WG and the AD, and listed as 
draft-ietf- on the WG charter), MEXT should inherit the document too... 
(the doc was anyway accepted at some point in time; it doesn't matter 
much if that was during the MEXT chartering process or the MIP6, NEMO or 
MonAmi6 process. The same applies for a document for which a WG may have 
decided to drop it for some reasons.

Jari, please inlight us about the procedure here.

The same reasoning applies to the NEMO Prefix Delegation draft. However, 
the discussion we had on the list and during the WG seems to indicate 
that the 2 current solutions didn't receive enough feedback in the past, 
and there may be other ways. So, in that specific case, it is useful to 
reconsider the document (but the 2 were accepted as NEMO WG docs some 
time in the past).


Thierry


Julien Laganier wrote:
> Hi Raj,
> 
> MEXT WG should work on items it is chartered to work on. 4285bis is 
> clearly not included in our current charter, thus it shouldn't be a 
> MEXT WG document.
> 
> MEXT wise, a way forward is to include 4285bis as part of our 
> rechartering.
> 
> --julien
> 
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Basavaraj Patil wrote:
>> 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"
>>
>> <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

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