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

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"
>
> <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