Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Extremely well said Tom !

Rgs,
R.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ronald Bonica"<[e-mail]>
> To:<[e-mail]>;<[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11 PM
>> Folks,
>>
>> Thanks for introducing this document!
>>
>> I would like to bring the authors' attention to the following
> documents that are working in OPSEC:
>>
>> - draft-behringer-lla-only
>> - draft-baker-opsec-passive-ip-address
>>
>> To some extent, draft-grow and draft-behringer are debating with one
> another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it is
> not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are being
> considered in different WGs.
>
> I think it a bigger shame that draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores is
> not in the RFC Editor queue awaiting publication!
>
> It is a natural companion to RFC6598 and could have, should have, been
> in the queue at the same time.  This I-D was relevant when it was first
> written 2 years ago, and I see its relevance decreasing with time, as
> people stumble over the mistakes that this I-D could have prevented.  It
> has taken those 2 years to get this I-D IETF-ready, little has changed
> in the content in that time, and it is time we got it out of the door.
>
> Of course there is scope for improvement, there always is, but that is
> an argument for never publishing anything.  If the authors of the other
> I-Ds want to build on it, then of course they can produce a bis that
> covers more, but let's publish what we have got.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>>
>> For the purpose of discussing these three documents, I think that a
> little cross-posting is acceptable.
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Ron Bonica
>> vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf