[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 12 Problems with "draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-04.txt" : was RE: Reminder: clarification....
Good response and good for me. Thank You.
(I am working with others on ent analysis very very tricky :---))
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 3:34 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Alex Conta; Erik Nordmark; v6ops@ops.ietf.org;
> gilligan@intransa.com; david.kessens@nokia.com;
> jonne.Soininen@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: 12 Problems with
> "draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-04.txt" : was RE: Reminder:
> clarification....
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > I see your points but if we are to use your model as editor then we
> > need to be consistent in all specs at what level of detail
> we go into
> > for the technical protocol specs (as opposed to operational
> technical
> > ones). I think it comes down to what detail and health warnings we
> > put in documents and I think that is AD and Chairs decision. But
> > whatever it is lets keep it for all documents. I have seen Alex's
> > issues in other docs and other members presented on other
> specs. Be
> > good to know the rules of engagement for v6ops at this
> juncture with
> > this spec.
>
> <co-chair hat on>
>
> The stage at which the document is *does* make a difference.
>
> If an argument is made that such and such health warning,
> operational guideline, or whatever should be put in the
> document, and it seems reasonable, it should probably be
> seriously considered for inclusion
> -- *if* this happens prior to WG last call, at WG last call,
> or maybe even at IETF last call (if appropriate).
>
> At some point in the process -- when the documents are beyond
> last calls and forwarded to the IESG for publication, past
> IESG evaluation, etc. -- we just *have* to stop tweaking the
> document unless there are strong reasons to do so.
>
> If WG participants believe that there are very strong reasons
> why the current proposals in this particular case need to go
> in, and are fine with accepting the delays etc. which would
> be incurred (redoing IESG evaluation at least), please
> provide input. It has been solicited...
>
> I don't think this directly addresses your question at its
> widest interpretation, but should clarify the issue at hand.
>
> <co-chair hat off>
>
> (I personally think it's good to have operational guidance in
> as well, as long as it's sufficiently clear what is protocol
> specification and what is operations or other warnings.. --
> along with other issues in the proposals, these have been
> partially mixed up.)
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
>