Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes

Julien, sorry, I seemingly made a confusion with another private request.

Le 22/03/2011 23:26, Julien Laganier a écrit :
> Alex:
>
> Let me get this straight:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[email protected]>  wrote:
>> Le 22/03/2011 21:28, Julien Laganier a écrit :
>>>
>>> Alex:
>>>
>>> What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be
>>> specific.
>>
>> Because I earlier requested in private to Chairs a 5min slot in the
>> agenda and I did not receive reply, neither + nor -.
>>
>> I guess(?) the reason of no reply may be similar to what was
>> replied publicly to Fred's request, hence my dissertation.  I may
>> be wrong though.
>>
>> Now publicly I would like to request a 5min slot to present
>> advancement of draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt
>> which presents three new scenarios applicable to Vehicular
>> communications which use RA-based routing on Mobile Routers which
>> may be HA-less when no HA available, and run unmodified Mobile
>> IPv6 when HA available.
>
> Couple of points:
>
> 1. Your draft also doesn't correspond to any of this WG's
> deliverable.

Yes, I agree.

> 2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
> this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
> expressed interest in it.

YEs to the first part - I was given a chance to present in Maastricht.

For the second part: yes there were no comments during my Maastricht
presentation.

However, subsequent discussion on the mailing list seemed to request
from me (among other points) contribution of more industrial needs of
this kind of thing.  I consider this point addressed with the new more
commercial 3 scenarios as well as expanded authorship resulted from
analysis with a commercially-oriented partner - described in 01.

Other points which seemed to be requested on the mailing list about this
draft (e.g. other interest from parties from vehicular SDOs) have not
yet materialized.

Another point which I remember to have been raised is eventual starting
of new work like BoF.  Now, as in August 2010, I can only say it is too
early, I hope not forever too early, but just too earlyerish.

> 3. I also have double-checked my mailbox and I do not see any private
> request to the chairs for a five minute slot to present this draft.

Right, I just checked too and nothing.  I think I was wrong to say so
about that private request.  I took it for another request for another
WG then, sorry for the confusion, blame on my part.

> The only related thing I can see is a message _to the list_
> announcing a new version of your draft which isn't replying to
> Marcelo's call for slot request.

Yes, I did send an announcement on the mail list about the draft.

> In this message you wrote "if deemed necessary, I would be happy to
> present during a 5minute slot at the MEXT WG meeting in Prague."
> Since nobody replied to you, I am assuming that nobody on this list
> deemed necessary that you present again this draft in Prague.

Ah right, that must be it.

> As a result, I am denying your request for a slot.

Note taken.

Alex

>
> --julien
>