Stefano,
Going back and looking at the emails, I see that the last
set of emails
was full consensus on accepatance as WG item and then a
suggested mobdir
review. Is this lack of consenus a decision that the chairs
made? I'm
very confused about your statement on "does not seem
to be WG
consensus", since I haven't seen any email to that
effect.
Regards,
Vidya
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stefano.faccin nokia.com
[mailto:stefano.faccinnokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Dondeti, Lakshminath; gabriel_montenegro_2000yahoo.com;
> mipshopietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official
WG
> adoption ofinternetdrafts
>
> Yes, there was approval on the idea of proceeding with
> consensus on WG approval first, then mobdir review.
Now,
> since there does not seem to be WG consensus, are you
suggest
> we do not do the mobdir at all? I see going to mobdir
review
> as a way to improve the draft to increase the chances
to
> reach a consensus as soon as possible.
> Stefano
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:ldondetiqualcomm.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:35 PM
> >To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-SIR/Dallas);
> >gabriel_montenegro_2000yahoo.com; mipshopietf.org
> >Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in
official WG adoption
> >ofinternet drafts
> >
> >Hi Stefano,
> >
> >Thanks for your message. Once the proposal to
"make the draft a WG
> >item and then ask for Mobdir review" was
made, I recall seeing
> >approvals and no disagreements. So, I am still
puzzled!
> >
> >thanks and regards,
> >Lakshminath
> >
> >At 09:54 AM 4/11/2006, stefano.faccinnokia.com
wrote:
> >>Lakshminath,
> >>your recollection of the original discussion
about the call for
> >>consensus is correct. However, since there have
been
> several comments
> >>or questions on the draft, we do not feel there
is consensus on
> >>approving the draft as WG draft. We believe
that a
> reasonable way to
> >>ensure those questions are clarified and that
we get good
> >input on the
> >>draft is to have the mobdir review the draft
first.
> >>
> >>Stefano
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: ext Lakshminath Dondeti
[mailto:ldondetiqualcomm.com]
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:50 AM
> >> >To: gabriel montenegro; mipshopietf.org
> >> >Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging
interest in official
> WG adoption
> >> >ofinternet drafts
> >> >
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >I have a different recollection of the
"consensus" on
> >> >draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.
The order was,
> >approve the
> >> >draft as a WG item and then ask for a
mobdir review. Did I miss
> >> >further discussions (offline ones perhaps)
on this topic?
> >> >
> >> >regards,
> >> >Lakshminath
> >> >
> >> >At 07:48 AM 4/11/2006, gabriel montenegro
wrote:
> >> >>Folks,
> >> >>
> >> >>Thanks for the comments and
participation in this discussion. In
> >> >>general, there was good support for
adoption of the proposed
> >> >documents,
> >> >>but it seems that for the
security-related drafts, there were
> >> >negative
> >> >>comments and discussion than for the
others.
> >> >>
> >> >>It was also suggested that a mobility
directorate review
> >would be a
> >> >>good thing. This is actually a common
practice predating this
> >> >>discussion: new drafts being adopted
by "mobility"
> working groups
> >> >>are requested for review by mobdir. So
we will request that
> >> >review for all our adopted drafts.
> >> >>However, we feel that given the
comments on the security
> >drafts, we
> >> >>would like to have reviews for those
drafts before
> actual adoption.
> >> >>
> >> >>In short, the drafts we're adopting
right now are:
> >> >>
> >> >>
draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rev-XX.txt
> >> >> based on
draft-koodli-mipshop-rfc4068bis-00.txt
> >> >>
> >> >> draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-XX.txt
> >> >> based on
draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-02.txt
> >> >>
> >> >> draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-XX.txt
> >> >> based on
draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-02.txt
> >> >>
> >> >>Next versions of the above drafts
should adopt the official
> >> >name shown above.
> >> >>
> >> >>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.
> >> >>
> >> >>-chairs
> >> >>
> >> >>--- gabriel montenegro
<gabriel_montenegro_2000yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Folks,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In today's meeting we talked
about 4 potential items up for
> >> >> adoption as official
> >> >> > working
> >> >> > groups. Talking with folks after
the meeting, we've decided to
> >> >> add two more to the list
> >> >> > of items we'll ask the WG
whether we should adopt. This is the
> >> >> follow-up email to
> >> >> > today's
> >> >> > discussion, to make sure we ask
this on the mailing list.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So the question to the WG is:
Should we adopt the following
> >> >> documents as official WG
> >> >> > items (based on the individual
drafts as noted below)?:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1.
draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rev-XX.txt
> >> >> > based on
draft-koodli-mipshop-rfc4068bis-00.txt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2.
draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-XX.txt
> >> >> > based on
draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 3.
draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send-XX.txt
> >> >> > based on
draft-kempf-mobopts-handover-key-01.txt
> >> >(currently expired)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 4.
draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-XX.txt
> >> >> > based on
draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-02.txt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 5.
draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-XX.txt based on
> >> >> > draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-02.txt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 6.
draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt based on
> >> >> >
draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Please send comments one way or
another through April 4, 2006.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > chairs
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>>__________________________________________________
> >> >>Do You Yahoo!?
> >> >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the
best spam protection around
> >> >>http://mail.yahoo.com
> >> >>
> >>
>>_______________________________________________
> >> >>Mipshop mailing list
> >> >>Mipshopietf.org
> >> >>https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>_______________________________________________
> >> >Mipshop mailing list
> >> >Mipshopietf.org
> >> >https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> >> >
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Mipshop mailing list
> >>Mipshopietf.org
> >>https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
|