Re: 6MAN WG Last Call - draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jinmei,

On 01/15/2016 04:09 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
>>> I have a few comments on the 04 version however, which may better be
>>> addressed before the publication:
>>>
>>> - The title seems to be misleading to me.  On starting to re-read the
>>>   latest version almost forgetting past discussions, I first wondered
>>>   why this is supposed to be "Informational" if it "deprecates" a
>>>   standard feature.  I then found it actually does not insist on
>>>   deprecating it by updating RFC2460, merely saying the authors
>>>   the believed atomic fragment is a bad idea.
>>
>> FWIW, this version documents the issues associated with atomic
>> fragments, and why such support is removed from RFC2460bis.
> 
> Ah, okay.  I now vaguely recall such discussions...in that case, it
> would make more sense to me that this document explains it more
> explicitly, referring to rfc2460bis.  Then we probably don't have to
> adjust the document title.

Will do.



> Any of the rest of the comments are rather subjective matters.  After
> all, I'm not opposed to the conclusion per se, and the "unfair" (to
> me) facts are still facts anyway.  So if it's only me who wish it to
> be more neutral/fair, I wouldn't insist on any changes.

Okay. We'll try to tweak the text a bit anyway.

Thanks so much!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492