Re: The note to Tony Li about draft-ietf-isis-traffic

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Thursday, January 23, 2003, 4:20:13 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Mostly good. Some wording suggestions below.

>> >From what Bill and Alex tell me, you are taking a related position as
>> Bill's in the ISIS working group - that you trust your personal

> I'd drop the reference to Bill in this paragraph. It's OK to mention
> him in the history, but preferable not to compare them directly.

Agree, let's drop it in both cases in this para.

>> judgment more than you do the jugment of the IETF "some time in the
>> future", and that you want the ability to block changes to the
>> protocol - the difference to Bill Simpson's situation being that at
>> this time, apparently nobody in the WG or the IESG want changes to
>> your draft.

> The IESG does want changes (e.g., "reserved for cisco"). We may just
> not have communicated those changes to the WG yest.

I have, actually.

> Might be better to
> say that at this point, there hasn't yet been a disagreement between
> him and the comunity on what goes in. (and do the RTG ADs agree with
> this statement?)

I think this is good enough.

>> In order to block technology changes, I think you have to:

>> - Block someone introducing amendments in the ISIS WG using words not
>>   yours.
>> - Block someone introducing amendments in SC6 using words not yours.

> the "not yours" is hard to understand. Maybe better to say something
> like "using technical persuasion, not ownership assertion"?

Seems what is meant here is that someone can still change
the mechanisms described in the document by publishing a
non-derivative document, that overrides this one, and Tony
would have to block those too, which is impossible.

Alex