Subject: [savi] Call for WG items for a potential rechartering

From: Jean-Michel Combes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 15:42:04 +0200

Folks,

As promised during the last SAVI meeting in Prague, to prepare the
next IETF meeting, I would like to know whether WG members believe
there are still open issues the WG needs to work on or not.

If so, please, reply to this email, providing a clear description of
the item and your contribution (i.e. Editor, Co-Author, Reviewer). For
each proposed item, at least three volunteers ready to review the
future document are requested.

If you believe the WG has finished the work and can be closed, don't
hesitate to tell it too.

The deadline to reply is 2011-06-20.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards.

JMC.

---

From: Jean-Michel Combes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:49:53 +0200

Folks,

just a friendly reminder about the deadline.

Best regards.

JMC.

---

From: "Jun Bi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:08:24 +0800

Dear WG chairs,

Here are some suggestions.

I think after the solutions are finialized, then the SAVI mib is necessary,
here is an example http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-an-savi-mib/

Aslo, after the solution senario for fixed LAN is finalized, then the 
senario of WLAN
needs to be consdiered, espeially for the host moving in centrailized WLAN 
(CAPWEB case) and distribued WLAN.
Here is an example http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bi-savi-wlan/

Based on CERENT's collabration with telecom carrieres such as China telecom,
the telecom has some requirements to deploy savi at BRAS equipment, to bind 
IPv6 source address with PPP session,
then at that case, maybe SAVI WG needs to study the senarios and 
requirements, then proivide guidelines or solution enhancement.

Moveover, to extend SAVI to intra-AS and inter-AS senario may aslo needs to 
be studied, starting at how the current solution
resolves the problems, is there any new idea can enhance it.

Thank you very much!

Jun Bi

-----原始邮件----- 
From: Jean-Michel Combes
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:49 AM
To: SAVI Mailing List
Cc: [email-masked] ; Christian Vogt
Subject: Re: [savi] Call for WG items for a potential rechartering

Folks,

Best regards.

JMC.

> The deadline to reply is 2011-06-20.
_______________________________________________
savi mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi

---

From: Jean-Michel Combes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:50:23 +0200

Folks,

Based on received feedback, and in conjunction with ADs, SAVI chairs decided:
(1) No SAVI meeting during the next IETF meeting in Quebec
- Not enough manpower to launch a rechartering
- Not enough potential items for a rechartering
- All present issues regarding WG documents should be easily solved on the ML
(2) Close the WG after the finalization of the RFC process for present
WG documents but keep the mailing list alive
- To get potential feedback from SAVI implementations/deployments
- To allow a potential "rechartering" in the future (like what has
been done in the past for the send/csi WGs or for ipsec/ipsecme WGs)
for needed new mechanisms (e.g. MIB, etc.)

Best regards.

SAVI chairs.

---

From: "Jun Bi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:59:14 +0800

Hi WG chairs,

What do you mean

- To allow a potential "rechartering" in the future for needed new 
mechanisms (e.g. MIB, etc.).

thanks,
Jun Bi

-----原始邮件----- 
From: Jean-Michel Combes
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:50 AM
To: SAVI Mailing List
Cc: [email-masked] ; Christian Vogt
Subject: Re: [savi] Call for WG items for a potential rechartering

Folks,

Based on received feedback, and in conjunction with ADs, SAVI chairs 
decided:
- All present issues regarding WG documents should be easily solved on the 
ML

Best regards.

SAVI chairs.

---

From: Jean-Michel Combes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:00:51 +0200

Hi Jun,

If there would be enough support in the future to work on new
mechanisms and people would think these mechanisms should become IETF
Standards, the ML will be the right place to initiate such a work.

Now, don't forget that in parallel, there is also personal submission
(i.e. AD shepherded/RFC Editor) for Experimental/Informational
proposals.

Is it clearer?

Best regards.

JMC.

2011/6/29 Jun Bi <[email-masked]>:
> -----原始邮件----- From: Jean-Michel Combes