RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

I just sent it.  The number of changes is not the issue but the content
of those changes is my point.  Nothing was changed that should preclude
DS is my position.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:27 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; bob@thefinks.com; jonne.soininen@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
> 
> 
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > I do not support this going to PS only DS.  I will appeal 
> most likely.
> 
> First, it would be nice if you explained why only DS is acceptable.
> 
> Note that there have been a large number of updates since the 
> original transmech.  I'd find it difficult to justify that we 
> could go to DS straight away. I'd personally really like to 
> go to DS straight away, but it doesn't seem like a 
> possibility with the revisions the document has undergone.  
> But if e.g. our AD/IESG says DS is fine, then it's fine with 
> me as well.
> 
> But if you do appeal, please try to be as clear about the 
> grounds for appeal as possible, and what action you seek (as 
> stated in section 6.5 of RFC 2026).
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
>