I think we are close enough to agreement to ask the authors of all three last call documents to revise them ASAP for a final check by the WG. That is:
draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt
Erik is also revising draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-01.txt in response to IESG comments.
Brian
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
In my opinion, the two big open issues are
draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt Thierry Ernst: "to be honest, I don't really understand the value of the document."
As I already said, we are chartered to produce this document, but its value is indeed "for the record". Does the WG think that is enough to justify publication?
I have no real strong feeling one way or the other. I do think that we want this documented somewhere and if not in a separate document perhaps this could be fitted into the architectural analysis? But I am not sure that is the best place and I think that might add length to an already quite long document.
I think the doc we have should be sufficiently useful, and besides, we've been requested to do. I'd say just ship it and if the IESG evaluation shows that it's not good enough, let's reconsider.
draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt Pekka Savola: "The document is rather long and conversational in tone." (plus specific comments related to this view).
Does the WG agree with Pekka, to the point of asking for a major revision effort?
To be clear, even though I said "rather long and conversational in tone", I was *not* asking the document to be rewritten to _not_ be that.
What I was hoping was maybe some more structure and changes in the document's organization so that the "conversation" would be more manageable.