Re: [AVTCORE] 6222bis

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 11 April 2013 16:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940CFCE8EB@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <CABkgnnUXgT14XXpN9qURB6rtxVjcLsS_uxwijiY-99nXwta5Jw@mail.gmail.com> <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940CFCE8EB@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:58:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXcOPxqU2iVfo5-UGjqbWMBimd--Xsy=N4BZM=tQDVAXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] 6222bis
Precedence: list

On 11 April 2013 00:55, Ali C. Begen (abegen) <abegen@cisco.com> wrote:
>>I feel a little uncomfortable that the document justifies its
>>existence (as a -bis) largely based on a reference to an individual
>>draft.  I would prefer to see the rationale presented in an appendix
>>instead; it's fairly important information to retain.
>
> If you really feel strong about it, we can consider it but the current
> draft mentions why we are doing this bis (due to the linkability of the
> CNAMEs resulting from 6222 algorithms). For the purpose of 6222bis, where
> that linkability comes from is not really essential IMO.

My point was that the assertion (6222 provides linkability) is
unsupported and not especially obvious.  I would be happier if the
document provided some stronger support for that claim.  Happier.  I'm
already happy that this is far, far better than 6222.

[AVTCORE] 6222bis Martin Thomson
Re: [AVTCORE] 6222bis Ali C. Begen (abegen)
Re: [AVTCORE] 6222bis Martin Thomson