Subject: [Autoconf] Request to publish draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt

From: Shubhranshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:19:06 +0530

This is a request to publish draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt . I
am the shepherding WG chair for this document. Please find below the
shepherd write-up for this document:

Shepherd Write-Up:
================

1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to
forward to the IESG for publication?

YES.

   2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
and key  non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the  reviews that have been performed?

YES, the ID has been adequately reviewed from both key WG members and
key non-WG members.
NO, there is no concern about the reviews.

   3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular  (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

NO.

   4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe
the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues
have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it
still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the
write-up.

NO.

   5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or
does the WG
as a whole understand and agree with it?

GOOD consensus exists behind this document.

   6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email to the Responsible Area Director.

NO. There were no objections raised during the extended WGLC

   7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
ID Checklist items ?

YES.

   8. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there
normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or
are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will
not publish
an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication
until all such
IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

NO, the document has only informative references and does not split
into normative and informative references.

   9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
Standard, Informational?)

Informational.

  10.       * Technical Summary

The document discusses Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs).  It presents
the initial motivation for MANET and describes unaccustomed
characteristics and challenges.  It also defines a MANET, other MANET
entities, and MANET architectural concepts.

          * Working Group Summary

It was required to have the MANET architecture well understood and
documented before focusing on the solution space. Lot of discussion
focused on the addressing and prefix model for MANET, which  was then
integrated and is  reflected in this version of the document.

          * Protocol Quality

This document is the result of a very long discussion and interaction
among the  members of the Internet area in general and MANET group in
particular. The document describes the MANET architecture which has
evolved over the past  several years based on the long MANET protocol
design and implementation experiences.

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:39:19 +0100

Shubhranshu wrote:
[...]
> still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the

No?

I've just raised yesterday an issue about multicast interpretation 
confusion between manetarch and problem statement documents.  HAs that 
been solved already?  A decision made?  The issue is here, and the 
following thread keeps the subject:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg00771.html

Was there a decision made with respect to this issue?  It seems like the 
confusing issue around multicast that I've raised is completely ignored??

Alex
PS: I removed IESG from Cc to not create further problems.  But you
     understand what I mean.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:46:30 -0500

I agree with Alex -- there is a sufficient amount of confusion
or difference of opinion that I think it's premature to push the
draft at this time. 

Regards,
Stan 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:39 AM
>To: Shubhranshu
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Request to publish 
>draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt
>
>
>Shubhranshu wrote:
>[...]

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:54:39 -0000

I'm seeing a lot of disussion on the problem statement,
but this is about the architecture document. Putting aside
failures to understand the basic principles of wireless
communications, what's the confusion on the architecture
document?

(Please note that's a question, not a statement either way.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Ratliff (sratliff) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 21 November 2007 14:47
To: Alexandru Petrescu; Shubhranshu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Request to publish

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

Regards,
Stan 

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:15:06 -0500

Chris, 

As you mention, the discussion is focused on the problem statement. 
However, I think the concern is that there may be differences in the 
two, and until the WG reaches consensus as to whether or not that's
the case, it would perhaps be best to hold off on pushing the 
architecture document.

Now as to the misunderstanding -- as I understand it, Alex fairly 
succinctly expressed the confusion :

>>confusion between manetarch and problem statement documents. 
>>Has that been solved already?  A decision made?  The issue is 
>>here, and the following thread keeps the subject:
>>Was there a decision made with respect to this issue?  It seems like 
>>the confusing issue around multicast that I've raised is 
>>completely ignored??
>>

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject one way or the other (and 
*that* should be a surprise to the list!); but given the level of
discussion
recently, I just thought we should see if we can close on a common 
understanding before proceeding. 

Regards,
Stan

>From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:55 AM
>To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff); Alexandru Petrescu; Shubhranshu
>Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:21:48 -0000

I think the linked reference comes under the exclusion
clause I noted. If that is the only issue, I don't see
any reason to postpone. If there are any others, what
are they?

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Ratliff (sratliff) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 21 November 2007 15:15
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Alexandru Petrescu; Shubhranshu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Request to publish

               *** WARNING ***

 Chris, 

Regards,
Stan

>HAs that