Subject: [MEXT] MEXT WG drafts (re)naming and submission

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:23:36 +0100

To all previous WG drafts authors/editors,

The MEXT WG has automatically inherited all WG drafts from previous WGs 
(MIP6, NEMO, MONAMI6), which isn't what we agreed on. I am therefore 
asking for your cooperation in handling (re)naming and submission of 
these drafts.

Previous WG drafts that are currently with IESG should keep their 
original name draft-ietf-{mip6,nemo,monami6}-* if updates are needed to 
address IESG comments and discusses:

        draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05
        draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-06
        draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-08
        draft-ietf-mip6-whyauthdataoption-04

Previous WG drafts that we agreed to take as MEXT WG drafts shall be 
renamed and submitted as draft-ietf-mext-* starting with their next 
update:

        draft-ietf-nemo-mib-03 
        draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-04
        draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-02 
        draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-04 
        draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-03 
        draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-05 
        draft-ietf-mip6-radius-02 

Previous WG drafts that the WG hasn't agreed to take as WG drafts, or 
have no corresponding work item in MEXT charter must not be submitted 
as draft-ietf-{mext,mip6,nemo,monami6}-*. Of course authors are free to 
submit them as individual submission, e.g. draft-*-mext-*:

        draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation
        draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd
        draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis
        draft-ietf-mip6-generic-notification-message

Thanks in advance.

--julien

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:01:23 -0800

Hi Julien,

>         draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis

4285bis mainly fixes a bug (key length) in RFC 4285. In fact I thought
it was ready for a MIP6 WG last call. Raj, please correct me if I am
wrong. I think this document should be a MEXT WG document.

Regarding the other changes in the document (for example removing the
IESG note) should of course be discussed on the MEXT mailing list.

>         draft-ietf-mip6-generic-notification-message

I thought we concluded we missed this document somehow and needs to be
added to the charter?

Vijay

---

From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:15:03 -0800

Hi Julien,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Laganier [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:24 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MEXT] MEXT WG drafts (re)naming and submission
> 

Does it apply also to draft-ietf-mip6-aaa-ha-goals?

Thanks
Gerardo

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:47:51 -0600

RFC4285bis is a minor bug fix w.r.t the key length.
If MEXT does not want to make this a WG doc, we can maybe progress it as a
MIP6 WG doc.
It has already completed WG LC in August, 07.
Hence I have no problem forwarding it to the IESG for processing as a MIP6
WG doc.

-Raj

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:52:50 -0800

> Hence I have no problem forwarding it to the IESG for processing as a MIP6

Ok, then it was just waiting for the document shepherd writeup.
Now I don't see any reason for this to be published as an
individual submission.

Vijay

---

From: Brian Haley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:52:19 -0500

That's what my mental note says as well.  The poll from the minutes had:

 > - Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6
 >
 > For:    ~15
 > Against: ~0

so it clearly wasn't opposed.

-Brian

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:57:20 +0100

Hi Vijay,

On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>
> Julien Laganier wrote:
> > Previous WG drafts that the WG hasn't agreed to take as WG drafts,
> > or have no corresponding work item in MEXT charter must not be
> > submitted as draft-ietf-{mext,mip6,nemo,monami6}-*. Of course
> > authors are free to submit them as individual submission, e.g.
> > draft-*-mext-*:
> >
> 4285bis mainly fixes a bug (key length) in RFC 4285. In fact I
> thought it was ready for a MIP6 WG last call. Raj, please correct me
> if I am wrong. I think this document should be a MEXT WG document.

This is the MEXT WG and we are not chartered to work on maintaining 
4285, thus I think this should not be a MEXT WG document.

If the WG agrees to include 4285bis as part of our rechartering, and our 
new charter is approved, then of course it is fine that 4285bis becomes 
a MEXT WG draft.

> I thought we concluded we missed this document somehow and needs to
> be added to the charter?

I wasn't making a statement on the rechartering aspect, just saying it's 
currently not in MEXT charter and should thus not be a MEXT WG draft 
(until it's in an approved new MEXT charter).

Best,

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:58:31 +0100

Hi Gerardo,

On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Giaretta, Gerardo wrote:
>
> >
> > Previous WG drafts that we agreed to take as MEXT WG drafts shall
> > be renamed and submitted as draft-ietf-mext-* starting with their
> > next update:
> >
> >         draft-ietf-nemo-mib-03

Yes, I missed that one. Thanks for catching this.

Best,

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:02:46 +0100

Hi Raj,

MEXT WG should work on items it is chartered to work on. 4285bis is 
clearly not included in our current charter, thus it shouldn't be a 
MEXT WG document.

MEXT wise, a way forward is to include 4285bis as part of our 
rechartering.

--julien

On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Basavaraj Patil wrote:
> If MEXT does not want to make this a WG doc, we can maybe progress it
> as a MIP6 WG doc.
> Hence I have no problem forwarding it to the IESG for processing as a
> MIP6 WG doc.
>
> -Raj
>
>
> > thought it was ready for a MIP6 WG last call. Raj, please correct
> > me if I am wrong. I think this document should be a MEXT WG
> > document.
> >
> > Regarding the other changes in the document (for example removing
> > the IESG note) should of course be discussed on the MEXT mailing
> > list.
> >

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:24:12 +0100

Well, there are documents in the former WGs which may have been accepted 
as WG docs AFTER the MEXT charter was first drafted. If that was the 
case (i.e. the document was accepted by the WG and the AD, and listed as 
draft-ietf- on the WG charter), MEXT should inherit the document too... 
(the doc was anyway accepted at some point in time; it doesn't matter 
much if that was during the MEXT chartering process or the MIP6, NEMO or 
MonAmi6 process. The same applies for a document for which a WG may have 
decided to drop it for some reasons.

Jari, please inlight us about the procedure here.

The same reasoning applies to the NEMO Prefix Delegation draft. However, 
the discussion we had on the list and during the WG seems to indicate 
that the 2 current solutions didn't receive enough feedback in the past, 
and there may be other ways. So, in that specific case, it is useful to 
reconsider the document (but the 2 were accepted as NEMO WG docs some 
time in the past).

Thierry

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:30:24 +0100

Brian,

> so it clearly wasn't opposed.

Nobody said the WG was opposed. I just said we're not chartered to work 
on a generic notification message (GMN) and thus the above draft 
shouldn't be a WG draft.

W.r.t. to the poll we did last meeting, it gives an *indication* of how 
much support there is in the meeting attendees to include GMN in our 
new charter proposal. 

We should not presume anything w.r.t. the WG consensus on including GMN 
in a new charter proposal and/or whether the new charter proposal we 
come up with will be approved.

I suggest the way forward is to discuss on the mailing list whether or 
not there is WG consensus to include GMN in a new charter proposal.

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:35:46 +0100

Vijay,

On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> > If MEXT does not want to make this a WG doc, we can maybe progress
> > it as a MIP6 WG doc.
> > Hence I have no problem forwarding it to the IESG for processing as
> > a MIP6 WG doc.
>

I'm not sure whether or not there are reasons to publish 4285bis as 
individual.

I'm sure that until we got an approved charter that includes 4285bis 
there are reasons why 4285 bis should not be published as an output of 
the MEXT WG.

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:49:34 +0100

Hi Thierry,

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Well, there are documents in the former WGs which may have been
> accepted as WG docs AFTER the MEXT charter was first drafted. If that
> was the case (i.e. the document was accepted by the WG and the AD,
> and listed as draft-ietf- on the WG charter), MEXT should inherit the
> document too... (the doc was anyway accepted at some point in time;
> it doesn't matter much if that was during the MEXT chartering process
> or the MIP6, NEMO or MonAmi6 process. The same applies for a document
> for which a WG may have decided to drop it for some reasons.

This is exactly what happened, with one motivated exception (see below): 
any WG draft of a former WG which has a corresponding deliverable in 
our charter was taken as a MEXT WG draft (see mails we chairs have been 
sending).

The single exception that rule pertains to prefix delegation for NEMO. 
Our charter has only one deliverable for a NEMO prefix delegation 
mechanism, but there were two NEMO WG drafts related to that. We 
decided that since there's no clear consensus for any of the two 
solutions, we will not adopt *yet* any of them, and rather wait for the 
WG to gain consensus on *one* prefix delegation mechanism, at which 
point we adopt the corresponding draft.

The above exception is well motivated: we as a WG should follow our 
charter.

> The same reasoning applies to the NEMO Prefix Delegation draft.
> However, the discussion we had on the list and during the WG seems to
> indicate that the 2 current solutions didn't receive enough feedback
> in the past, and there may be other ways. So, in that specific case,
> it is useful to reconsider the document (but the 2 were accepted as
> NEMO WG docs some time in the past).

See above. Seems to me that you should be satisfied about the current 
situation.

Best,

--julien

> >> Hence I have no problem forwarding it to the IESG for processing
> >> as a MIP6 WG doc.
> >>
> >> -Raj
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Previous WG drafts that the WG hasn't agreed to take as WG
> >>>> drafts, or have no corresponding work item in MEXT charter must
> >>>> not be submitted as draft-ietf-{mext,mip6,nemo,monami6}-*. Of
> >>>> course authors are free to submit them as individual submission,
> >>>> e.g. draft-*-mext-*:
> >>>>
> >>> I thought we concluded we missed this document somehow and needs
> >>> to be added to the charter?
> >>>
> >>> Vijay
> >>>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:46:46 +0100

Hi Julien,

> point we adopt the corresponding draft.

Agreed but a proper wording would read  "We decided to remove the 
current NEMO prefix delegation drafts as WG items since there is no 
clear consensus for any of the two adopted solutions" since drafts WERE 
WG items.

> The above exception is well motivated: we as a WG should follow our 

I would just like to make sure that former decisions are deprecated 
correctly (to me, MEXT is not a new group, it inherits from MIP6, NEMO 
and MonAmi6 so former charters and conclusions should be taken into 
account).

So, if there was an item in the former group charter, and that item has 
just been incidently removed or wrongly worded while drafting the MEXT 
charter, we should not simply stick to "the MEXT charter says that" but 
the history.

> See above. Seems to me that you should be satisfied about the current 

I'm satisfied with the "We decided to remove the current NEMO prefix 
delegation drafts as WG items since there is no clear consensus for any 
of the two adopted solutions" but not with  "we will not adopt *yet* any 
of them" (the draft was already adopted).

Thierry.

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:30:15 +0100

Hi Thierry,

While I'm sympathetic to your view that "MEXT is not a new group, it 
inherits from MIP6, NEMO and MonAmi6 so former charters and conclusions 
should be taken into account", let me point out that we are ultimately 
bound by our charter and IETF processes, i.e. documented WG rules and 
guidelines. There would be no formal basis to do otherwise. MEXT is a 
WG on its own with its own charter, and should abide by it.

We are currently in the process of revising our charter, and I encourage 
anyone to put forth items they think are missing. Once we agree on a 
revised charter that can be sent to IESG for approval and that charter 
is approved the WG will be in position to adopt drafts.

The situation with NEMO prefix delegation drafts is however different 
since we are chartered to develop *one* solution. That mean we'll have 
to make a choice sooner or later. It is somehat orthogonal to that 
choice itself whether we adopt both drafts now and decide later which 
one gets sent to IESG, or whether we choose now one and adopt it as WG 
draft. Let me suggest that it is better to decide sooner so that we can 
concentrate on one draft that will be one of the output of this WG. 
Regarding the explanation why MEXT is not adopting any of the two 
drafts yet, I don't care too much and am satisfied with either your or 
my explanation. Now we can argue about that and also about adopting 
both, but maybe we'd be better working on NEMO prefix delegation :)

Best,

--julien

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> >> accepted as WG docs AFTER the MEXT charter was first drafted. If
> >> that was the case (i.e. the document was accepted by the WG and
> >> the AD, and listed as draft-ietf- on the WG charter), MEXT should
> >> inherit the document too... (the doc was anyway accepted at some
> >> point in time; it doesn't matter much if that was during the MEXT
> >> chartering process or the MIP6, NEMO or MonAmi6 process. The same
> >> applies for a document for which a WG may have decided to drop it
> >> for some reasons.
> >
> > This is exactly what happened, with one motivated exception (see
> > below): any WG draft of a former WG which has a corresponding
> > deliverable in our charter was taken as a MEXT WG draft (see mails
> > we chairs have been sending).
> >
> > The single exception that rule pertains to prefix delegation for
> > NEMO. Our charter has only one deliverable for a NEMO prefix
> > delegation mechanism, but there were two NEMO WG drafts related to
> > that. We decided that since there's no clear consensus for any of
> > the two solutions, we will not adopt *yet* any of them, and rather
> > wait for the WG to gain consensus on *one* prefix delegation
> > mechanism, at which point we adopt the corresponding draft.
>
> clear consensus for any of the two adopted solutions" since drafts
> WERE WG items.
>
> correctly (to me, MEXT is not a new group, it inherits from MIP6,
> NEMO and MonAmi6 so former charters and conclusions should be taken
> into account).
>
> So, if there was an item in the former group charter, and that item
> has just been incidently removed or wrongly worded while drafting the
> MEXT charter, we should not simply stick to "the MEXT charter says
> that" but the history.
>
> >> However, the discussion we had on the list and during the WG seems
> >> to indicate that the 2 current solutions didn't receive enough
> >> feedback in the past, and there may be other ways. So, in that
> >> specific case, it is useful to reconsider the document (but the 2
> >> were accepted as NEMO WG docs some time in the past).
> >
> > See above. Seems to me that you should be satisfied about the
> > current situation.
>
> delegation drafts as WG items since there is no clear consensus for
> any of the two adopted solutions" but not with  "we will not adopt
> *yet* any of them" (the draft was already adopted).
>
>
> Thierry.
>
> > Best,
> >
> > --julien
> >
> >> Julien Laganier wrote:
> >>> Hi Raj,
> >>>
> >>> MEXT WG should work on items it is chartered to work on. 4285bis
> >>> is clearly not included in our current charter, thus it shouldn't
> >>> be a MEXT WG document.
> >>>
> >>>> If MEXT does not want to make this a WG doc, we can maybe
> >>>> progress it as a MIP6 WG doc.
> >>>>>> drafts, or have no corresponding work item in MEXT charter
> >>>>>> must not be submitted as
> >>>>>> draft-ietf-{mext,mip6,nemo,monami6}-*. Of course authors are
> >>>>>> free to submit them as individual submission, e.g.
> >>>>>> draft-*-mext-*:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> thought it was ready for a MIP6 WG last call. Raj, please
> >>>>> correct me if I am wrong. I think this document should be a
> >>>>> MEXT WG document.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regarding the other changes in the document (for example
> >>>>> removing the IESG note) should of course be discussed on the
> >>>>> MEXT mailing list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thought we concluded we missed this document somehow and
> >>>>> needs to be added to the charter?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vijay
> >>>>>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:15:43 +0200

Thierry,

Julien explained the situation. The chairs and I reviewed the situation
with all the drafts before they decided what to do. And I do think that
we need to get one standard for prefix assignment for NEMO.

If there are any further questions, let me know.

Jari

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:07:25 -0800

> 4285, thus I think this should not be a MEXT WG document.

But it was a MIP6 WG document that completed WG last call and was
about to be forwarded to the IESG. So it doesn't make sense to me
to make it an individual submission now.

Anyway, lets include it when we re-charter.

Vijay

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:16:44 +0100

Hi Vijay,

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> about to be forwarded to the IESG. 

Too bad that wasn't done then.

We're now the MEXT WG and we do have a charter in which 4285bis isn't 
included. It doesn't make sense to adopt as WG draft a draft discussing 
something we're not chartered to work on. In that aspect, it somehow 
doesn't matter what happened in mip6.

> So it doesn't make sense to me to make it an individual submission
> now. 

Whether or not it makes sense to make it an invidual submission is 
irrelevant to that discussion.

> Anyway, lets include it when we re-charter.

Sure. It's on our list.

--julien