[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipsec
Subject:    Re: [IPsec] Survey for WG interest in adopting draft-nagayama-ipsecme-ipsec-with-qkd
From:       Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-12-23 13:45:25
Message-ID: CAHbuEH6C3k3vEvnVUBG2rDUu1hdz4W-wBiJ9sJdp5XQDTZeszg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:
> Paul Hoffman writes:
>> Please note that the conclusion of this survey was that the WG was
>> not going to adopt the document. The chairs asked that the authors
>> set up their own discussion fora if they want to continue
>> discussion. Announcing new versions of non-WG drafts on this list is
>> fine, but trying to keep the discussion alive here is not.
>
> I do not agree on that. The ipsec is the ietf list for ipsec related
> discussion. It was originally for ipsec WG and when IPsecME was formed
> we decided to use same mailing list, and I think that at point the
> idea was that mailing list should be used with all ipsec related
> discussions.
>
> The discussion about those draft has not been that overwhelming that
> we would need to create separate mailing list for that. If you are
> going to say that most of the active working group participants (I
> think most of the really active working group participants did answer
> to question, but there might be few missing) are not enough for draft
> to be working group document, and then you say that we cannot even
> discuss it on the ipsec list I think that is not ok.
>
> I do not want to joining several different mailing list for short time
> to discuss about each draft the chairs feel should not be adopted on
> the wg and then the lists would most likely be silent forever (except
> of course the mandatory spams).

Sorry for my delayed response, I was on vacation and found one of the
few places that has really bad access (data roaming).

I agree with Tero.  This should be discussed on list as that is the
purpose of this list.  If there is enough support, the draft can be
later added as a WG draft, but list members can work on it to develop
it to that point.  If it does not become a WG draft, this will help me
to decide if the draft should be an individual submission or ISE.  As
Tero said, many of the active participants chimed in, so there may be
enough support for an AD sponsored draft minimally.

Thank you,
Kathleen
> --
> kivinen@iki.fi
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]