RE: [Autoconf] Request to publish draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt

["Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]>]

I think the linked reference comes under the exclusion
clause I noted. If that is the only issue, I don't see
any reason to postpone. If there are any others, what
are they?


-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Ratliff (sratliff) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 21 November 2007 15:15
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Alexandru Petrescu; Shubhranshu
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Request to publish
draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt


               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

 Chris, 

As you mention, the discussion is focused on the problem statement. 
However, I think the concern is that there may be differences in the 
two, and until the WG reaches consensus as to whether or not that's
the case, it would perhaps be best to hold off on pushing the 
architecture document.

Now as to the misunderstanding -- as I understand it, Alex fairly 
succinctly expressed the confusion :

>>
>>I've just raised yesterday an issue about multicast interpretation 
>>confusion between manetarch and problem statement documents. 
>>Has that been solved already?  A decision made?  The issue is 
>>here, and the following thread keeps the subject:
>>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg00771.html
>>
>>Was there a decision made with respect to this issue?  It seems like 
>>the confusing issue around multicast that I've raised is 
>>completely ignored??
>>

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject one way or the other (and 
*that* should be a surprise to the list!); but given the level of
discussion
recently, I just thought we should see if we can close on a common 
understanding before proceeding. 

Regards,
Stan



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
>[mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:55 AM
>To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff); Alexandru Petrescu; Shubhranshu
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Request to publish 
>draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt
>
>
>I'm seeing a lot of disussion on the problem statement,
>but this is about the architecture document. Putting aside
>failures to understand the basic principles of wireless
>communications, what's the confusion on the architecture
>document?
>
>(Please note that's a question, not a statement either way.)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stan Ratliff (sratliff) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: 21 November 2007 14:47
>To: Alexandru Petrescu; Shubhranshu
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Autoconf] Request to publish
>draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt
>
>
>               *** WARNING ***
>
>This mail has originated outside your organization,
>either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
>     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 
>
>I agree with Alex -- there is a sufficient amount of confusion
>or difference of opinion that I think it's premature to push the
>draft at this time. 
>
>Regards,
>Stan 
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:39 AM
>>To: Shubhranshu
>>Cc: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Request to publish 
>>draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt
>>
>>
>>Shubhranshu wrote:
>>[...]
>>>    4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this 
>>document that
>>> you believe
>>> the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are
>>> uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns
>>> whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues
>>> have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it
>>> still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the
>>> write-up.
>>> 
>>> NO.
>>
>>No?
>>
>>I've just raised yesterday an issue about multicast interpretation 
>>confusion between manetarch and problem statement documents.  
>HAs that 
>>been solved already?  A decision made?  The issue is here, and the 
>>following thread keeps the subject:
>>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg00771.html
>>
>>Was there a decision made with respect to this issue?  It 
>>seems like the 
>>confusing issue around multicast that I've raised is 
>>completely ignored??
>>
>>Alex
>>PS: I removed IESG from Cc to not create further problems.  But you
>>     understand what I mean.
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Autoconf mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Autoconf mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
>
>********************************************************************
>This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>distribute its contents to any other person.
>********************************************************************
>


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************



_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf