Subject: RE: [Pana] Revised I-Ds to IESG

From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:19:46 -0700

Alper Yegin <mailto:[email-masked]> scribbled on Thursday, August
24, 2006 12:42 AM:

> I don't see a good reason why we should deviate from the process.

Hmm.  I thought that the process was for documents to pass IETF Last
Call (which these have not, in anything like their current form) before
IESG review.  If the changes made to the documents had been minor
editorial/technical changes, then it would be appropriate to continue
directly to IESG review; my understanding is that that is not the case.

> 
> Alper
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:12 AM
>> To: Alper Yegin; Mark Townsley (townsley)
>> Cc: Jari Arkko; [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: [Pana] Revised I-Ds to IESG
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> PANA WG has completed revising the two WG documents based on the IETF
>> last call feedback. Could you please take them to IESG review now?
>> 
>>> Wouldn't a more appropriate next step be another IETF Last Call?

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

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:07:32 +0300

The PANA framework document change was purely editorial. We simply cut text
and sections.

The PANA base specification change involved technical change, in form of
removing two of the features (discovery and serial authentication). Those
were clean removals, i.e., no impact on the rest of the design. That, in
affect, was mostly editorial too.

Alper

> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:20 PM

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:26:16 +0200

Given that most of the feedback for these documents came during an IETF 
LC, I support the idea of going back to the IETF list for a second pass. 
This is similar to the decision one makes when comments are received 
during a WG LC - sometimes another LC is a good thing to do, sometimes 
not. In this case, I'd like to have community review and consensus 
before going to the IESG. Believe me, if we can get through the IETF 
list without too much scarring, I will be far more comfortable taking 
these documents to the IESG.

I will need to take a look at the revisions myself, and then issue an 
IETF LC again - I've never done it before, but I can shoot for a 
shortened LC (2 weeks) if that would make the WG more comfortable (as 
long as we get people to respond, silence is not necessarily a good 
indicator here - I will alert the ietf list to this effect).

- Mark