Re: IETF 118 Minutes available

Those are different options. At the moment it isn’t - unless has a new identity I’ve missed - a live draft at all. The WG decided to abandon it, but it was later brought back as an individual draft, but even that is now long expired. It could as a first step easily be brought back again as an individual draft. Then there are (at least) two options. One option is that it could become an individual submission RFC, which doesn’t require this WG, but this WG might well be asked for input on it and which might affect its progress to an RFC. The other option is that once there is a draft again, it could be adopted as a WG draft, reversing the previous decision. I have no idea how the chairs, AD and WG would feel about either.

In either case (assuming the WG is consulted for an individual RFC, and definitely if re-adoption by the WG is considered) the previous technical issues would have to be looked at - I don’t know if or how well they were addressed in the last individual draft, and it is suggested that there’s been progress since.

> On 17 Nov 2023, at 19:53, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:49 PM Christopher Dearlove <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Link to document? The datatracker shows draft-manet-aodvv2 last version -16 in 2016 and draft-perkins-aodvv2 (not a WG document) last draft -03 in 2019. Are we talking about a new ID or an individual submission RFC or what? It’s not a WG document at this point.
> 
> 
> Yes, IMO it is individual draft now and wg-draft was deleted before, so they need to republish it for the WG and propose review/adoption,=

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet