Re: comments on the architecture document

[Noel Chiappa <[e-mail]>]

	Hmmm. While I'd like to see many of the points you raised
added/clarified at some point (since I'm an utter perfectionist, and like to
always have things as polished as possible), I'm not sure I'd go quite that
far!
	The IETF process does not insist on everything being perfect before
going to PS; witness PPP, which has had its documentation (and some protocol
details) changed substantially over time after going to PS. I'm sure you also
remember BGP3; the IESG was not ecstatic about the documentation quality, but
after some fixups decided to pass it along anyway. The IAB then tossed it back
for still *more* adjustments (as I'm sure you painfully recall :-). So, there
is plenty of precedent for documents which were not perfect being allowed to
progress.

	As for the specifics of your comments, I don't recall seeing any
protocol bugs pointed out in your comments. It was mostly clarifications (12
by my count), questions or suggestions for more discussion (15), and things I
didn't agree with (7). (Some entries were counted twice, as longer ones
sometimes got counted twice since I agreed with parts and disagreed with
parts.) In general, items in the first two categories I though would usually
benefit from clearer text, or extra discussion, and I hope this is eventually
done, but I saw nothing critical.
	In my view, it's up to the WG whether they want to try and fix these
now or go ahead as things stand.

	Noel