[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IESG evaluation draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05
Pekka,
> The IESG approved the publication of
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05.txt as is.
Thank You WG, Chairs, and IESG.
>
> However, there were three minor non-blocking comments which
> might be worth considering:
>
> 1)
> [rhousley] [IN IESG DISCUSSION]
> Should VoIP be discussed in this document? There are usually QoS
> issues associated with VoIP that deserve consideration.
I will add Pekka's suggestion. But to put it in app section as Brian
said is good idea but will be much work and I fear controversy. But
reason to support Pekka is this was clear miss on the teams part and we
should add it.
>
> 2)
> [hta] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
> Nit: Example Network B uses the word "external" twice with
> different meanings; that's confusing...
I will replace with Brian's text and strategy for external.
>
> 3)
> [mrw] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] My affiliation is wrong in this document:
> s/ThinkMagic/ThingMagic. Could be fixed in AUTH48 if at all.
My error it is typo.
>
> 3) is trivially fixed later on, so there's no need to worry
> about it now. The question is whether it would make sense to
> consider which changes would be needed to fix 1) or 2) (or
> whether we just go on as is). If the fixes are simple, these
> could be done as an RFC-editor note as well, without
> respinning the document.
Suggest we fix 1 and 2 and edit fix 3.
Do I rev to another draft level number and I assume yes?
Thanks
/jim
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>