Subject: [Pana] draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08.txt

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:23:49 +0200

The IESG discussed this draft yesterday. There's one issue from Pasi 
which I think Yoshi has already responded to. Please submit a new draft 
version to address that.

However, we have a more serious procedural problem. It seems that RFC 
5191 says that bit allocation from the PANA header is only possible via 
Standards Action. This draft requires a bit, and I think the right 
classification for this draft is Experimental. The IESG would have no 
problem in allocating the bit for this draft, but it is currently 
against the approved RFCs from the PANA WG.

I think the right solution to this problem is to write a short draft 
that updates RFC 5191 IANA considerations to say "... Standards Action 
or IESG Approval". And yes, I'm kicking myself everytime I realize that 
there's an RFC somewhere that didn't include the IESG Approval option. 
We often need it to approve something.

Is the WG OK with this path forward?

Jari

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:07:11 +0900

I fully agree with your proposed resolution.

Thanks,
Yoshihiro Ohba

Jari Arkko wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Pana mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
>

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:44:10 -0800

I agree too.

Thanks.

Alper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 7:07 AM
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: Yoshihiro Ohba; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Pana] draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08.txt
>