[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HOKEY] First draft of new hokey charter
Hi Tina,
Thank you for your mail. The change on the charter text is fine with me.
About the change in the milestones, I don't really have an opinion,
since I don't know much about which documents depends on which others...
Best regards,
Sebastien.
Tina TSOU a écrit :
> 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
> "
>
>
> B. R.
> Tina
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sebastien Decugis <mailto:sdecugis at nict.go.jp>
> *To:* Tina TSOU <mailto:tena at huawei.com>
> *Cc:* hokey at ietf.org <mailto:hokey at ietf.org>
> *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>
> <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> <mailto:HOKEY at ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
> >
>
> --
> Sebastien Decugis
> Research fellow
> Network Architecture Group
> NICT (nict.go.jp)
>
--
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)