Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Thu, 08 July 2010 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB193A69F0 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CwbyR8J6I40W for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABE63A6946 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so358227bwz.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.6.74 with SMTP id 10mr5989853bky.203.1278579685110; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.68.13 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D033A5474@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C34F2E8.1080908@piuha.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D033A5474@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:01:24 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimnsHVbvHM2TMYJG9cx9TCbn-qFZktz8WuIdxS5@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:01:27 -0000

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
<Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
> It still seems odd, at the least, to be back at the WG in AUTH48.
> But having said that, there are three suggested edits. Bottom line
> either version of each is acceptable. There is however a difference
> in the third one. The first two are clarifying technical comments.
> I'm not sure they really add anything, but they don't hurt. The
> third is different though, it changes the actual meaning, from
> "this is preferred", to "this is more useful", which are not the
> same thing. I think the old version is what got consensus everywhere,
> and changing it is a bit more than editorial. But as I said, either
> is acceptable in itself.


I agree with Chris. I am fine with the first two edits. The last seems
to change the content on which the WG has agreed upon. I don't think
we should change this in AUTH48, unless there is a very strong new
argument, which the WG has missed or not correctly understood.

Ulrich