Subject: RE: [Mobike] about draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-01.txt (issue 40)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:49:17 +0300

Francis Dupont wrote:

> => this is this conclusion I contest. BTW the charter explicitely
> mentions SCTP so either we fix the charter or we follow it or we
> make clear the document describes a partial solution and the work
> about the full solution will be done later (i.e., a change in the
> milestones).

The WG charter lists six different issues for the WG to work 
on.  I don't think anyone has claimed that the first document,
draft-ietf-mobike-protocol, will address all of them (and this
fact should be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the draft).
But I can add a note saying this more explicitly...

<snip>

> => I'll ask the IESG what to do when a WG ignores its IETF charter.
> My concern here is we can't work about SCTP/multihoming support
> in IKEv2 (RFC 3554 for IKEv2 for instance) because it is in the
> MOBIKE charter.

I don't think splitting the work to several physical documents is
"ignoring the charter"; neither is finishing some of those documents
before others.

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike