I agree too. Thanks.
Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: pana-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pana-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Yoshihiro Ohba > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 7:07 AM > To: Jari Arkko > Cc: Yoshihiro Ohba; pana@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Pana] draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08.txt > > I fully agree with your proposed resolution. > > Thanks, > Yoshihiro Ohba > > Jari Arkko wrote: > > The IESG discussed this draft yesterday. There's one issue from Pasi > > which I think Yoshi has already responded to. Please submit a new > draft > > version to address that. > > > > However, we have a more serious procedural problem. It seems that RFC > > 5191 says that bit allocation from the PANA header is only possible > via > > Standards Action. This draft requires a bit, and I think the right > > classification for this draft is Experimental. The IESG would have no > > problem in allocating the bit for this draft, but it is currently > > against the approved RFCs from the PANA WG. > > > > I think the right solution to this problem is to write a short draft > > that updates RFC 5191 IANA considerations to say "... Standards > Action > > or IESG Approval". And yes, I'm kicking myself everytime I realize > that > > there's an RFC somewhere that didn't include the IESG Approval > option. > > We often need it to approve something. > > > > Is the WG OK with this path forward? > > > > Jari > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pana mailing list > > Pana@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pana mailing list > Pana@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list Pana@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
