Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] [Fwd: draft-ietf-mobileip-3gwireless-ext-04.txt]

From: "Lipford, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:14:56 -0500

Pat,

I can remember if I have responded to this or not, so I will now.

You bring up very good questions and I personally thought of this when
TSG-A/TR45.4 was doing this and brought it up.  Our goal is to be IETF
"compliant" on the infamous 3GPP2 TSG-P R-P Interface.  To do this and not
slip the schedule that we were up against we developed the I-D and put it
into version 4.0 of the standard KNOWING that as the I-D went through the
IETF process of last call.  We decided we would address the necessary
comments and move the I-D into RFC status (we are OK with experimental, but
not really informational).  Once we have an RFC we will then go back in a
future version of our standard and "enhance" the R-P interface to be fully
compliant.  This way we were able to meet our dates and still become IETF
compliant as soon as possible.
Mark A. Lipford

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Friday, August 18, 2000 5:59 PM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: [MOBILE-IP] [Fwd:
draft-ietf-mobileip-3gwireless-ext-04.txt]

                Let me be more explicit (and this is just honesty here, I am
not trying to
                p*ss anyone off).

                You write a draft, submit it. Meanwhile you document it, and
publish a
                document prior to knowing whether the IETF will accept it as
is. The IESG does
                a last call, and comments come in. You state it is too late
because your
                document has been published.

                The fact is that IETF procedures, be them as it may, are
set, and we have to
                live by them. If significant comments come back during the
last call process,
                the authors have to address them, if they want the draft to
be published as a
                WG work item.

                Your options, are I see it are the following (either way you
get an RFC
                number): 1. Publish as Informational (as a non WG document),
as is.
                2. Go for either experimental or Proposed Standard, and
address the comments.

                If you wish to have #2 and not address the comments, because
it is published
                in IS-2001, then I believe this is wasting the WG's time
because our review
                (or lack thereof :), is being ignored anyways. That was my
point.

                PatC

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 07:19:53 -0700

Good, then it sounds as if you are willing to modify the document to address
comments brought up on the list. That makes is much simpler.

Thanks for the clarification,

PatC