MIPSHOP Draft Agenda for IETF 67

> There was also consensus
> (as much consensus as there has been for any document
in MIPSHOP) for
> adoption of this document. 

When was this consensus reached? I might have missed it, but
I'd appreciate
a reference. (Also, I don't know what is meant by " as
much consensus as
there has been for any document in MIPSHOP". Is there a
different consensus
building practice in this WG?)

> the WG needs to be convinced that these alternatives
> are better and have advantages over the drafts that
> are being considered currently.

What's going on is, there are multiple solutions for the
same problems. The
WG needs to evaluate and see if it makes sense to
standardize one or more of
the solutions. All I'm trying to confirm is that nothing is
cast in stone,
until all solutions are considered.

Alper






_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Alper Yegin wrote:
>> There was also consensus
>> (as much consensus as there has been for any
document in MIPSHOP) for
>> adoption of this document. 
> 
> When was this consensus reached? I might have missed
it, but I'd appreciate
> a reference. (Also, I don't know what is meant by
" as much consensus as
> there has been for any document in MIPSHOP". Is
there a different consensus
> building practice in this WG?)
> 
>> the WG needs to be convinced that these
alternatives
>> are better and have advantages over the drafts that
>> are being considered currently.
> 
> What's going on is, there are multiple solutions for
the same problems. The
> WG needs to evaluate and see if it makes sense to
standardize one or more of
> the solutions. All I'm trying to confirm is that
nothing is cast in stone,
> until all solutions are considered.

well, nothing is ever cast in stone.

however, Gabriel and Stefano initiated a consensus
call on the following documents (with a few other
documents) on March 21 2006.

    draft-kempf-mipshop-handover-key-00.txt
    draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-03.txt

from Gabriel's email on April 11 2006,

> 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.

the reviews we have received so far haven't raised
any significant technical concerns. with
draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt there
was an issue raised of having to charter new work
in the DIME and/or radext WGs.

let us know if you see any issues.

regarding draft-haddad-mipshop-hmipv6-security-06
Stefano initiated a WG consensus call for adopting
it as a WG document on July 17 2006. the result of
the consensus call

> -       draft-haddad-mipshop-hmipv6-security-04 (now in
rev. 06): there has been a lot of discussion on the draft,
with considerable comments and objections raised. In light
of the very strong opposition, the chairs require further
input on the draft and have submitted a request for feedback
from the mobility directorate and the security directorate.
We’re therefore delaying the decision on the adoption/non
adoption.

Vijay



_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

> from Gabriel's email on April 11 2006,
> 
> > 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.
> 
> the reviews we have received so far haven't raised
> any significant technical concerns. with

Sorry, I couldn't find the mobility directorate reviews. Did
I miss them?
Anyways, could you please send a reference to them?

Alper




> draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt there
> was an issue raised of having to charter new work
> in the DIME and/or radext WGs.
> 
> let us know if you see any issues.
> 
> regarding draft-haddad-mipshop-hmipv6-security-06
> Stefano initiated a WG consensus call for adopting
> it as a WG document on July 17 2006. the result of
> the consensus call
> 
> > -       draft-haddad-mipshop-hmipv6-security-04
(now in rev. 06): there
> has been a lot of discussion on the draft, with
considerable comments and
> objections raised. In light of the very strong
opposition, the chairs
> require further input on the draft and have submitted a
request for
> feedback from the mobility directorate and the security
directorate. We're
> therefore delaying the decision on the adoption/non
adoption.
> 
> Vijay
> 



_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop