Vicky
The overall aim is to turn up in Prague holding a draft that everyone
who cares in the WG has read and is happy with. This timeline gives the
WG about 4 weeks to review, and gives us a couple of weeks to update any
incoming comments if they come soon enough. Comments post July 6th
should be rolled up in last call after the meeting. Advertising these
deadlines means people know this draft is coming. We can't make people
review but I think this period is long enough.
So yes I think this timeline is good.
Regards
John
On 15/04/15 08:30, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Also, after we release version 9 to MANET, should we give a certain amount of time for reviews and add another revision?
maybe this:
[mid June] Reviews by MANET list
[end of June] Revision 10 of the draft, updated based on reviews by WG
[July 6th] Deadline for draft submission for next IETF meeting
Let me know :)
Vicky
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Victoria Mercieca
<vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'll post these to MANET at some point tomorrow morning if
there's no changes anyone wishes to make?
Also, are any "internal" only - maybe the first one?
Are we giving enough time for Chris to look over the security
text and to make any further changes for sec AD review (1 week)?
Have we all read RFCs 7182 and 7183 so we could mark that one
as DONE?
- [mid April] Read RFCs 7182 & 7183
- [end of April] Security Considerations text for review by
Chris Dearlove
I think I'd like to make the above item "Security Considerations
text for review on MANET WG list".
- [end of April] Editorial updates
- [April 22nd/end of April] RFC 5444 double check
- [first week of May] based on Chris Dearlove review, submit
Security Considerations for early sec AD review
And then, "Based on list review, submit... "
Regards,
Stan
- [mid May - DONE] Craft language for enabling RREQ / RREP
assistance by nodes even immediately after reboot
- [mid May - DONE] Fix language about bidirectionality and
adjacency
- [end of May] new version of the draft
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
updated list:
**DRAFT DEADLINE: July 6th**
- [??] closure of issues (tidy up as many as possible)
- [end of april?] text for review by chris dearlove
- [end of apri] Stylistic edits (split into sections?)
- [April 22nd/end of april] RFC 5444 double check
- [first week of may] based on chris' review, submit
Security Considerations for early sec AD review
- [stylistic edits + 2 weeks] Craft language for enabling
RREQ / RREP assistance by nodes even immediately after reboot
- [stylistic edits + 2 weeks] Fix language about
bidirectionality and adjacency <may already be done, would
be part of Vicky's revision>
- [end of may] new version of the draft
- [mid April] read RFCs 7182 & 7183
Am 02.04.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
> hi,
> i've put together everybody's milestones for easier
reference:
>
> - [end of april?] text for review by chris dearlove
> - [mid April] read RFCs 7182 & 7183
> - [] have text for chris dearlove review
> - [] based on chris' review, submit Security
Considerations for early sec AD review
> - [] Stylistic edits (split into sections?)
> - [] 5444 double check
> - [] closure of issues (tidy up as many as possible)
> - [] extra implementations
> - [] Craft language for enabling RREQ / RREP assistance
by nodes even immediately after reboot
> - [] Fix language about bidirectionality and adjacency
<may already be done, would be part of Vicky's revision>
>
> Now we'll just have to fix the dates :)
