Re: [manet] Progress...

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 18 January 2016 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7251B3800 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:00:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.367
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pA9Xx8nCZMtt for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 03FB11B37FD for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:00:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 8408 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jan 2016 15:00:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2016 15:00:21 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id 7T0C1s00x2SSUrH01T0FjS; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:00:20 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Zc6OaKlA c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=7aQ_Q-yQQ-AA:10 a=uZAc4WFtYM7gncMvZOEA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject; bh=W0qQYv1THWtrGTbuzjQ1SxbrzkEvZqMunKUtsfHLIgQ=; b=UbyvsbSLNM9cBPkpWj7mvFQWDrpo/EJAcfC/SNonZIdwEHvhA7qZ97kdFzpas4vEsRwDwWuY1uxlDUN/2NObEWLVouIl+KStRrIUahHiwbP5iASxcG+v4atbLnPkVFMi;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:40348 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1aLBHx-0005fD-OJ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:00:13 -0700
To: "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@idirect.net>, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
References: <CA+-pDCd_+hgQ8Ks+tT5FfCNAwwT-pCVhzC0VZpF8=uLJjkQ3hA@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D8A6F22EB@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CA+-pDCcBDp5_UOj5+28SXGPyc_tUc1tqWFgLE32ukU2MUtUSsg@mail.gmail.com> <bfb25ff55acc48e1a24e9f3d106a9bd5@VAUSDITCHM3.idirect.net>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <569CFDF7.3020206@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:00:07 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bfb25ff55acc48e1a24e9f3d106a9bd5@VAUSDITCHM3.idirect.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/HI6-nvj45GySS51jupPwC4DJtjM>
Subject: Re: [manet] Progress...
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:00:26 -0000

Stan,

Happy to hear there's been some progress.

On 1/18/2016 9:20 AM, Ratliff, Stanley wrote:
> My intent is to put a loooong email to the list when the document is
> posted, with a point-by-point discussion of the issues raised, and the
> proposed resolutions in the text.
    While admittedly a style preference, I think discussing each topic
raised in a separate e-mail thread is a more conducive way of closing
out open issues.  This way we can have focused discussions on each topic
which hopefully yields in agreed upon text/changes per topic without
having to solve / address all issues at once.  Some WGs even use trac to
keep track of the open issues/discussion -- this is of course a WG chair
/ editor choice.

>From the rest of your message, it sounds like the security
considerations section could be topic one if you are amenable...

Lou