On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:58, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 7:21 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Mar 26, 2007, at 23:42, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As a co-author (and of course I was recused in the IESG discussion)
my main concern is to see the RFC published ASAP. [...]
As a member of the community who will have to live with the text of
this RFC until it can be obsoleted by future revisions, I'd like to
suggest that the co-author's desires to see the document published as
quickly as possible should be secondary to concerns from the working
group that the RFC not be misleading.
Do you feel that the document is misleading? That is something I have
not heard the working group say.
I do think the document needs editorial changes to keep from misleading
readers. I have no technical objections to the informational content of
the document, and I'm in full support of its publication as an
Informational RFC. It's the editorial content of the document to which
I'm objecting.
Keep talking...?
Please review my messages on 2007-03-12 and 2007-03-13 and the thread of
related discussion.
<http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2007/msg00055.html>
<http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2007/msg00062.html>
I don't have anything to add to those remarks at this time. I apologize
for not providing these comments at an earlier date, but I have only
recently joined the working group. I raised the issues as soon as they
came to my attention.
--james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff
apple computer, inc.