Le 07/11/2011 14:16, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
Thanks Alex for raising this.
My view on this is that the automotive industry has some needs that
are partly related to NEMO RO, but not only related to NEMO.
I agree. That's why its title could change (dont use "ro" in title nor
filename). The contents of the draft as of now already include a number
of use cases which do not necessarily need RO.
Some NEMO wording could be softened, to present it as an alternative not
necessarily _the_ solution.
Additionally, a number of discussions happened in 2011 on IETF email
lists (mext, 6man) which relate to automotive requirements and IPv6.
How about adding VIN and ULA text into it?
So, I would like to seek advice from our AD about where would be the
best place at the IETF to discuss automotive requirements related to
IPv6 ?
I am also interested to learn where else have automotive discussions
happened at IETF, other than 6MAN and MEXT.
VIN, March 2011:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg13729.html
ULA, September 2011:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14715.html
Regarding the dratf itself, it is our intention to update it.
Good to know.
Alex
Regards, Thierry
On 07/11/11 14:06, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Hello Jari, WG members,
Le 28/10/2011 14:08, Jari Arkko a écrit :
All,
We are making some changes to the working group. While we have
successfully published a large number of specifications in
recent years, recently it has been difficult to make progress in
the group. The chairs and ADs have looked at the situation and we
believe we need a new focus and a bit of new organization as
well. We are terminating the working group and moving the one
remaining active work item to a new working group, the "DMM"
working group. Here's what is going to happen:
o Jouni Korhonen and Julien Laganier will become the chairs of
the group.
o The group will meet in Taipei (there is a MEXT slot in the
agenda).
o The charter of the group will be changed to focus only on the
distributed mobility effort. We should discuss the details of
this charter change both on the list and in the meeting. The
meeting agenda should reserve some time both for technical
discussions as well as the charter discussion.
o Once the discussion on the list and in the meeting has
finished, we will rename the group to "DMM" and put the new
charter in effect.
o If there are any other specifications that people would like
to publish beyond the distributed mobility work, we can offer to
AD sponsor them to RFCs outside the new working group.
I wonder what is the plan about
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02? "Automotive Industry
Requirements for NEMO Route Optimization"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02
I can see a number of options to move it forward, like for example:
- change in authorship, title. - continue as part of new Charter
(fulfill earlier objectives) or sponsor separately per your offer.
- change in focus.
What do you think?
Alex
If there is some significant new activity, we can create new
working groups for that.
Comments and feedback and/or alternate suggestions on this plan
are welcome.
We would like to thank Marcelo for your many years of service in
MEXT. We could not have completed all the work we did without
your energy and push for high quality results. We would also like
to thank Jouni for taking on this new challenge, and Julien for
continuing the work in this space.
Jari and Ralph
_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
