Subject: Re: [Mip6] Revised Milestones for MIP6 Working Group

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:06:53 +0200

>    Done   Submit I-D 'Using IPsec between Mobile and Correspondent IPv6
>    Nodes' to IESG for publication as Experimental.
>
> => s/Experimental/Proposed Standard/
> BTW I submitted a revised version some hours ago.
>   

We talked about this during WG recharter last year. This document
does not appear in the charter at all, and its listing in the milestones
is actually an error (I reviewed the new list, sorry I didn't catch this
earlier).

The CN-IPsec document is being taken as an individual submission,
so called AD sponsored submission to Experimental.  We talked
about that status too, last year.

Jari

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:35:19 -0700

> about that status too, last year.

Thats odd. My understanding is that this document is a
MIP6 WG document. It was presented numerous times. There
was even a WG last call on this document. See
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip6/current/msg04111.html

I don't know why it does not appear in the charter
currently.

Vijay

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:37:53 +0200

> MIP6 WG document.

What may be confusing is that the document still has draft-ietf
filename. This is for historical reasons, however. We could change
that but it seems pointless given that we're so close to getting
this shipped to the RFC Editor.

Part of the reason that we did the recharter last year was that
the group had adopted a number of documents and what it
worked on no longer exactly matched the charter. At that point
it was important to discuss what should be in the charter
and what should not; after a lengthy discussion we came up
with the charter that appears in the IETF web page. And as
usual, your AD had opinions on what should be in the charter
(such as maintenance) or what should not (such as the draft
we are discussing), to ensure that important tasks are covered,
focus is kept, you do not take on too much, etc. And I also
want to enforce the new charter so that the group works within
its defined tasks. Having said that, I believed the draft in
question was useful to get published, so that's why I took
it on as an AD sponsored item. More information on AD
sponsored items here, by the way:

   http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-ad-sponsoring.html

These can basically produce exactly the same end result
as documents coming from Working Groups, even on
Standards Track. But they do not come from WGs, and
its an AD judgment call to take them on.

Jari

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:45:07 -0700

> its an AD judgment call to take them on.

I don't have a problem standardizing this document as an
AD sponsored document.

What is odd is that this document underwent a MIP6 WG
last call, and was forwarded to the IESG for publication
as Proposed Standard. But after that it became an AD
sponsored Experimental document. :)

Vijay