Subject: shim6 Digest, Vol 1, Issue 2

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:00:06 -0700

If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription.  To do so, go to 

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6

Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.

Send shim6 mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of shim6 digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: successful termination? (Shinta Sugimoto)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:52:36 +0900
From: Shinta Sugimoto <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [shim6] successful termination?
To: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Hi Jari,

Thanks for the response.  Then I believe we (co-authors of shim API 
draft) can pursue improving the documents by email discussions.  As I 
mentioned, the remaining task is to get feedbacks from HIP/SHIM6 
implementers and update the document accordingly.

Regards,
Shinta

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback. I'm responding to your process question below.
> 
>> W.r.t. the next step of the SHIM6 WG, I personally have no strong 
>> opinion as I have limited chances to participate IETF meetings 
>> unfortunately.  Excuse me for asking a basic question, but does the 
>> above (producing an informational RFC document from a WG draft) 
>> requires WG to exist?  If so, I would vote for 3.  Otherwise (I mean, 
>> I assume that technical discussions can be made over email), I will 
>> vote for 1.
> 
> Formally, nothing requires a WG to exist. Area Directors can sponsor 
> documents even to standards track without the existence of a working 
> group. But of course the issue is whether the existence of a WG helps in 
> arranging discussions about the document. Often it does, because there 
> will be chairs asking for last calls, possibly more people are going to 
> be interested in tracking list discussions of an existing WG, the only 
> way to have a face-to-face discussion in a meeting is to have a WG, and 
> so on.
> 
> Jari
> 
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-08
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shinta
>>
>> Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> As you may have noticed, all three base Shim6 documents have now been 
>>> approved after extensive edits from IESG reviews. This is obviously a 
>>> very happy outcome even if it took a long time. Thank you everyone 
>>> who was involved in making this happen!
>>>
>>> Last week I when I met the chairs and lead authors I asked what they 
>>> believe should happen next. A lively discussion followed about the 
>>> status of the technology, the WG, and its few remaining WG documents. 
>>> But our main conclusion was that the working group participants 
>>> should tell us what they have in mind.
>>>
>>> Here's a couple of different alternatives:
>>>
>>> 1. Declare success and close the WG. The most important work now is 
>>> implementation, testing, and deployments. The WG is not needed at 
>>> this moment, and if it will later be needed, it is easy to create a 
>>> maintenance WG. Or if a new effort for some bigger new piece of 
>>> functionality is needed, the proper way to do that is through a BOF 
>>> anyway. Question: how many implementations exist? Which ones are 
>>> worked on actively? Is there any deployment or trial experience to 
>>> report?
>>>
>>> 2. Put the WG into sleep for a year or two, and return when there's 
>>> additional experience.
>>>
>>> 3. Work on the most important one(s) of the remaining WG documents 
>>> (locator-pair-selection, api, applicability). Which one? Is there 
>>> energy to do the work, including WG participants doing reviews, 
>>> commenting on issues, etc?
>>>
>>> 4. Do something else that is important for Shim6. What?
>>>
>>> We would like to move forward with this in a couple of weeks. The WG 
>>> will either be closed or rechartered. Let us know if you are 
>>> interested and if so, what you believe should be done.
>>>
>>> Jari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
shim6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6

End of shim6 Digest, Vol 1, Issue 2
***********************************