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

Ulrich Herberg <> Thu, 08 July 2010 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB193A69F0 for <>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CwbyR8J6I40W for <>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABE63A6946 for <>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so358227bwz.31 for <>; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id 10mr5989853bky.203.1278579685110; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D033A5474@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
References: <> <> <> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D033A5474@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:01:24 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Ulrich Herberg <>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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)
<> 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.