Subject: [Mip6] draft-patil-mip6-whyauthdataoption to be published as WG I-D

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:33:03 -0500

Hello,

The justifications for the authentication option specified in WG I-D:
"Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6",
draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol are captured in the following I-D:
"Why Authentication Data suboption is needed for MIP6",
draft-patil-mip6-whyauthdataoption.

In order to progress the WG I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol, we
need to publish the whyauthdataoption ID as a WG document. The
whyauthdataoption ID MAY be progressed as an Informational RFC if
necessary. 

-Chairs

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

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:31:45 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   In order to progress the WG I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol, we
   need to publish the whyauthdataoption ID as a WG document.

=> I don't understand the "as a WG document"? If there is delay
constraint to make it a WG document just add an extra delay.
Or do you suggest the RFC editor is faster for WG documents
(it should not)?

   The whyauthdataoption ID MAY be progressed as an Informational RFC if
   necessary. 
   
=> this seems necessary.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:31:02 -0700

Raj,

Why not combine the two documents? It would make referencing them easier.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:33 PM
Subject: [Mip6] draft-patil-mip6-whyauthdataoption to be published as WG I-D

Hello,

-Chairs