Bonjour Sebastien, Hi Glen et al,
How about the following changes?
"3) A
specification for a Hokey architecture Document. It includes deployment
of
ERP and EAP early authentication protocol in the mobile environment.
There
are various useful scenarios that need to be addressed."
Changed
into
"3)
A specification for a Hokey architecture Document. It includes deployment
of
ERP and EAP early authentication protocol in the mobile environment.
There
are various useful scenarios that need to be addressed. This
specification and the revision of RFC5296 should be conducted in
parallel.
"
"Goals and
Milestones:
Nov 2009 First draft on Local Domain Name Discovery for
ERP
Nov 2009 First draft on Early Authentication solutions
Mar 2010 First
draft on Hokey architecture
Mar 2010 First draft on NAS-Authenticator
Interaction
Jul 2010 First draft on revision of RFC 5296
Mar 2011 Submit
the Local Domain Name Discovery for ERP draft to IESG
Mar 2011 Submit the
Early Authentication solutions draft to IESG
Jul 2011 Submit the
Hokey architecture draft to IESG
Jul 2011 Submit the
NAS-Authenticator Interaction draft to IESG
Nov 2011 Submit the revision of
RFC 5296 to IESG
Mar 2012 Re-charter or shut down WG
"
Changed to
"Goals and
Milestones:
Nov 2009 First draft on Local Domain Name Discovery for
ERP
Nov 2009 First draft on Early Authentication solutions
Mar 2010 First
draft on Hokey architecture
Mar 2010 First draft on NAS-Authenticator
Interaction
Jul 2010 First draft on revision of RFC 5296
Mar 2011 Submit
the Local Domain Name Discovery for ERP draft to IESG
Mar 2011 Submit the
Early Authentication solutions draft to IESG
Jul 2011 Submit the
NAS-Authenticator Interaction draft to IESG
Nov
2011 Submit the Hokey architecture draft to IESG
Nov 2011 Submit the
revision of RFC 5296 to IESG
Mar 2012 Re-charter or shut down
WG
"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:35
PM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] First draft of new
hokey charter
Hi Tina,
Sorry for my late answer.
I don't know if /
how the milestones or the text should be changed. I
would simply like to
avoid that the architecture document is based on
the current ERP mechanism,
if this mechanism is to be changed in a way
that impacts the architecture
(i.e. the architecture document would be
history a few month after its
publication...)
If the architecture document is supposed to take into
account the
revision of rfc5296, it would seem natural to me that its
deadline is
same or after the one of rfc5296bis. I don't know what a
reasonable
change to the milestones is (move rfc5296bis earlier or
architecture
document later), nor the other constraints on these
documents.
Best regards,
Sebastien.
Tina TSOU a écrit
:
> Hi Sebastien,
> When I wrote this draft of re-chartering, I
haven't thought about it.
> You are right. So, what's your suggestion?
We could adjust the milestone.
>
>
> B.
R.
> Tina
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>
>
----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sebastien
Decugis <mailto:sdecugis at nict.go.jp>
>
*To:* Glen Zorn <mailto:gwz at net-zen.net>
>
*Cc:* hokey at ietf.org <mailto:hokey at ietf.org>
>
*Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2009 9:45 AM
>
*Subject:* Re: [HOKEY] First draft of new hokey
charter
>
> Hello
Glen,
>
> About the milestones, I am
wondering if the revision of RFC5296
> will
not
> have an impact on the architecture
document, in which case the work on
> both
documents should be conducted in parallel. What do you
think?
>
> Best
regards,
>
Sebastien.
>
> --
> Sebastien
Decugis
> Research
fellow
> Network Architecture
Group
> NICT
(nict.go.jp)
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
HOKEY mailing list
> HOKEY at ietf.org <mailto:HOKEY at ietf.org>
>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>
--
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT
(nict.go.jp)