Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:32:40AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Alain
> 
> (co-author hat on)
> 
> I understand the objections to this text. As I've already suggested to
> my co-authors, I think we need to be more explicit in identifying the
> parts of the document that refer to fully defined solutions and the
> parts that refer to potential solutions, and that is what this part
> is. The original intention was not to assert that everything is done,
> but rather that potential solutions exist (and those are where we should
> put effort).
> 
> So Margaret is probably correct that a separate document is needed, but
> I believe it is appropriate in the NAP document to show that there
> are potential solutions. In fact, that's why we have the "gap analysis"
> section.

I agree, and recall suggesting it was moved to an appendix for the same
reason, i.e. cited, but clearly not part of the 'can do now' text.

Tim