Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt

Roger,

On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
>>
>> Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find the changes is better."
>>
>> If it wasn't clear, I believe this document is technically done and needs
>> to be advanced, but it does need editorial work as indicated above.
> 
> Hmm sorry for being unclear, the technical part looked okay as far as
> I could tell, but as the quoted words from you, it will probably be
> more confusing to have two documents where the last one update/change
> the first one. Would be much better to have just one
> replacing/updating the old one.

That was my first thought, but then I realised it would cause a lot
of delay, and I think getting these changes deployed is quite urgent.

    Brian

> 
> --- Roger J ---
> 
>> Also there was Dave's review:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14984.html
>>
>> In IESG parlance that all seems like "new I-D needed" to me.
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian Carpenter
>>
>>
>> On 2011-12-16 08:07, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>>> On Dec 15, 2011 7:32 PM, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>     Unfortunately, the draft is in a limbo state at this point.  The WG
>>>> Last Call ended about a month ago with zero comments or statements of
>>>> support.  The chairs cannot advance this document without some show of
>>>> support by the community.
>>>>
>>>>     I humbly request that members of the working group review this
>>>> draft and post their comments, questions, and suggestions to the mailing
>>>> list.
>>> Brian Carpenter said it all in this post:
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <4EB9D332.1040003@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:11:14 +1300
>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Reading this document as a proposed standard, I think it will confuse
>>> the reader. I think that what we actually need is a 100% replacement
>>> of RFC 3484, that can be read on its own.
>>> </snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 