Re: [MEXT] [Recharter.2]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MEXT] [Recharter.2]
Hi,Julien and all
Appended with 1 item.
[E/C/R] GRE requirements for IPv6 mobility
[E/C/R] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support
[E/C] Binding Revocation for IP Mobility
[E/C] Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping for the Authentication Option Protocol
[C/R] Interaction between Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by PF_KEY extensions
[C/R] Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6
[R] Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6
[R] 4283bis to extend MN identifier to other identifiers
Best Rgds,
Thanks,
John.zhao
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: mext-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces at ietf.org] 代表
John.zhao
> 发送时间: 2008年2月14日 17:46
> 收件人: 'Julien Laganier'; mext at ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [MEXT] [Recharter.2]
>
> Hi,Julien and all
>
> [E/C/R] GRE requirements for IPv6 mobility
> [E/C/R] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support
> [E/C] Binding Revocation for IP Mobility
> [E/C] Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping for the Authentication Option Protocol
> [C/R] Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6
> [R] Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6
> [R] 4283bis to extend MN identifier to other identifiers
> Best Rgds,
> Thanks,
> John.zhao
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: mext-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces at ietf.org] 代表 Julien
> > Laganier
> > 发送时间: 2008年2月12日 23:32
> > 收件人: mext at ietf.org
> > 主题: [MEXT] [Recharter.2]
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > This is the next step in the recharter process. We'd like to get input
> > from WG participants on what should be the items included in
> > rechartering, what are their priorities, and who is willing to
> > sustain the effort. When that step is completed we will take the WG
> > input and discuss with our AD to move forward with deciding what to
> > include or not in the charter. Your input should be sent to the list
> > during the following two weeks, by 2008-02-26.
> >
> > Please pick from the list of items below the items you think the WG
> > should work on, and order them in decreasing priority (just to make
> > sure, first priority items goes first in the list you're making :).
> >
> > List of items:
> >
> > Binding Revocation for IP Mobility
> > MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs
> > IP Tunneling Optimization in a Mobile Environment
> > Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6
> > GRE requirements for IPv6 mobility
> > 4283bis to extend MN identifier to other identifiers
> > Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping for the Authentication Option Protocol
> > Interaction between Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by PF_KEY extensions
> > Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6
> > Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support
> >
> > Also, please prefix each of the items in your list with the letters E, C
> > and/or R if you're willing to:
> >
> > - [E]dit: Are you willing to edit the draft corresponding to the
> > item.
> >
> > - [C]ontribute: Are you willing to propose text for the draft.
> >
> > - [R]eview: Are you willing to review new revisions of the draft when
> > being asked by the chairs.
> >
> > As an example, that could be one input list:
> >
> > E MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs
> > CR Binding Revocation for IP Mobility
> > R IP Tunneling Optimization in a Mobile Environment
> >
> > meaning that the MIPv6 home link is first priority and you volunteer to
> > edit, Binding revocation is second priority and you're willing to
> > contribute and review, while IP tunneling optimization is third
> > priority and you're willing to review.
> >
> > Hope this is understandable :)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -- julien and marcello, MEXT chairs
> > _______________________________________________
> > MEXT mailing list
> > MEXT at ietf.org
> > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT at ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.