Subject: [Seamoby] Mobility Terminology Draft Ships!

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:00:49 -0800

Folks,

This somewhat cryptic announcement means The Mobility Terminology draft is
in the RFC Editor's queue waiting for an RFC number. Congratulations are in
order for Jukka, Charlie, Markku and everyone else who has contributed.
Thanx, all, for the hard work.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:46 PM
Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice:
draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology

> 'State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy
Vezza'
> ID Tracker URL:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=9277&rfc_flag=0

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

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:48:16 -0800

Hi,

I was wondering about the freshness of references in the
draft.. At least the fmipv6 citation points to an old reference.
It would be useful to have stable references on items which have
evolved since the beginings of this draft..

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:56:22 +1100

Hi Rajeev,

Is this something that the RFC-Editor looks after?

Greg

Rajeev Koodli wrote:
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=9277&rfc_flag=0> 
>>
>> >
>> >
>>

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:29:27 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

This is due to the work moving to MIPSHOP, should be updated to reflect
you are the new editor. I don't see any other mistakes, or are there?

Of course there is the question of expired draftst, too.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:19:24 -0800

References typically are updated as part of Author 48 Hours. This is a
period of time given to the authors after the draft has been edited  by the
RFC Editor to make any last minute changes. However, if the reference is
normative, then the draft will stay in the RFC editor queue until the
normative reference gets an RFC number. Since the FMIPv6 draft is on the way
to becoming an RFC, I think it would probably be OK to wait until Author 48
Hours.

            jak

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:04:32 -0800

Hello Jukka,

> you are the new editor. I don't see any other mistakes, or are there?

not just change of editor, the whole citation. Also, note that
the current citation referred to v-04 of the draft. Subsequently, the
draft spent 4 version changes in mip6.

> Of course there is the question of expired draftst, too.

Right. That was the point of my e-mail.

-Rajeev

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:53:35 -0800

Rajeev and Jukka,

It's a great idea for anyone who has updates to the references
to send them to Jukka, as the Editor.  Jukka should save them
up, and when he does final edits with the RFC Editor later,
these fixes will be put in.  

It's not ok to do any revision on the i-d till then, so
one just hands on to the changes needed..  

About the expired i-ds, folks can suggest a related published 
paper, or take out the ref (with regrets), or revive it, if it's
actually a working group doc which shouldn't stay expired.

The reason WG i-ds are cited as Work in Progress is
that they're headed on to RFCs, so later they're going to
be findable as RFCs by their title, as long as all goes well.

Allison
Seamoby's Area Director