Subject: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP WG

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:03:13 +0300

This working group has completed most of the work in its current 
charter, and with the bce-pfmip and andsf documents sent to IETF last 
call, has no more active drafts. The group has not met in a couple of 
IETFs. Over many years, the group has produced 16 RFCs or RFCs to be, 
many of which have been key optimizations for Mobile IP. I think this is 
an excellent result.

I do wonder about what to do next, however. My perception is that there 
are no pressing deployment needs or fundamental new ideas that we should 
address. As a result, my thinking is that we should declare success and 
close the group. Thoughts?

Jari

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:59:51 +0200

I concur with your assesment. "Declare success and close" sounds good.

-Basavaraj

On 8/9/10 6:03 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:04:56 -0700

Hi Jari:

I agree with your thoughts. We should close the group.
 
Regards
Sri

---

From: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:14:29 -0400

+1

Regards,

Jc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; mipshop-
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP WG
> 
> 
> > many of which have been key optimizations for Mobile IP. I think
this
> is

---

From: Frank Xia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:30:28 -0700

Hi Jari

Please consider the remaining chartered item 
"2. Prefix Management for point-to-point links with FMIPv6".

We presented this several times, and in IETF 74 meeting 
Vijay asked for adoption and no one objected.
Please also check the minutes
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mipshop/minutes?item=minutes74.html.

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:03 AM
To: Mipshop; Mipshop Chairs
Cc: Ralph Droms
Subject: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP WG

Jari

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:15:40 -0700

Hi Jari,

Frank is right. We need to progress one more document to the IESG.

The FMIPv6 prefix management for point-to-point links has been
presented a number of times in the WG meetings. There was consensus on
adopting this item as a WG document. My fault for not following up
with this document.

I suggest keeping the WG around for another month or two. I should be
able to send this document to the IESG by then.

Vijay

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:48:05 +0300

Was the support more about no objection or about strong energy to get
it done?

I think the document makes a lot of sense, and I have no problems in AD
sponsoring it to an RFC even outside a working group. (But I'm not sure
I want to keep a working group around unless there is a big crowd
wanting to get the work done.)

Jari

Vijay Devarapalli kirjoitti:

Hi Jari,

Vijay

Hi Jari

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----

Jari

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:57:58 -0700

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Was the support more about no objection or about strong energy to get it
> done?

"No objection", I guess. :)

> sponsoring it to an RFC even outside a working group. (But I'm not sure I
> want to keep a working group around unless there is a big crowd wanting to
> get the work done.)

That would work for me as well. But you might get a few more reviews
when it goes through a WG last call.

Vijay