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

Hi Vijay,

On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>
> 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.

This is the MEXT WG and we are not chartered to work on maintaining 
4285, thus I think this should not be a MEXT WG document.

If the WG agrees to include 4285bis as part of our rechartering, and our 
new charter is approved, then of course it is fine that 4285bis becomes 
a MEXT WG draft.

> 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?

I wasn't making a statement on the rechartering aspect, just saying it's 
currently not in MEXT charter and should thus not be a MEXT WG draft 
(until it's in an approved new MEXT charter).

Best,

--julien

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