Subject: [radext] Adopt draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam?

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:37:59 -0500

Dear chairs,

I would like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam/ to be considered for adoption as WG item. 
We could also progress it as independent submission but given that a number of radext work items are inspired by implementation
experience in eduroam and that we in particular are looking for document review of radext participants I think it makes sense to do it in radext.

Please let me know what you think.

Regards,

Klaas

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 18:05:25 -0500

Klaas Wierenga wrote:
> I would
> like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam/ to be
> considered for adoption as WG item. 
> We could also progress it as independent submission but given that a
> number of radext work items are inspired by implementation
> experience in eduroam and that we in particular are looking for document
> review of radext participants I think it makes sense to do it in radext.

  Well, it's not on-charter.

  However, it's documenting existing practice, and falls well within the
 practice of previous standards.

  What do the authors see as the benefit by having it a WG item?  The
document can still be published as an information RFC, without having WG
blessing.

  I'm willing to review it, whether it's a WG document or not.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:37:02 -0500

Hi Alan,

> document can still be published as an information RFC, without having WG

Yes, but that would put the burden on the sponsoring AD. Given the fact that all of this is close to on-charter items I thought it made sense to see if we could run it through the regular WG process.

>  I'm willing to review it, whether it's a WG document or not.

Great!

Klaas

---

From: "Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:31:42 +0000

Klaas,

As Alan points out this draft is not within our current charter.  We just
concluded discussion on the current recharter and we have a number of work
items to keep us busy for the next couple of months.  I expect that in the
Spring of next year, we'll open the charter back up for discussion at
which point we'd be happy to decide whether this work merits inclusion.
In the meantime, I suggest you continue refining the draft and drumming up
support (you've already got Alan on board). We'll make sure to keep a slot
open for you at the next IETF meeting to present.

-MS  

On 11/8/12 6:05 PM, "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>radext mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:31:56 +0100

On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking) wrote:

Hi Mauricio,

> items to keep us busy for the next couple of months.  I expect that in the

yeah , given the urgency of some of the work items that seems reasonable

> open for you at the next IETF meeting to present.

yes, depending on how far we converge we might go the individual submission route. Presentation slot appreciated!

Thanks,

Klaas