Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official WG adoption of internetdrafts

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:56:19 -0700

Gabriel,
The consensus for the security drafts was to adopt as WG items and then
request a mobility directorate review. From what I recall, there were no
objections to this. Is there a reason for a change in direction on this?

Regards,
Vidya 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gabriel montenegro [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:49 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mipshop] Re: Gauging interest in official WG 
> adoption of internetdrafts
> 
> 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 <[email-masked]> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop