Re: [MMUSIC] POF/PAN draft update - move BUNDLE-specific stuff to bundle draft

On 02/17/2014 12:38 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Another comment on this draft:
>
> While the mechanism described in this draft is strongly motivated by
> BUNDLE, it is conceptually independent of BUNDLE. IMO all the
> BUNDLE-specific behavior should be removed from this draft, and
> instead placed into the BUNDLE draft.
>
> I realize there is a chicken/egg thing here. It would make sense to
> keep the bundle-specifics here, so they don't get forgotten, until
> they are incorporated into the bundle draft.

If moving the BUNDLE-specific stuff to the BUNDLE draft means that
BUNDLE is dependent on completion of POF/PAN before considered
completed, I'm strongly opposed to this.

BUNDLE should not depend on POF/PAN. If BUNDLE-specific aspects of
POF/PAN need to be broken out, there needs to be a third draft that
references both.

>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
>
> On 2/14/14 6:43 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> I've updated the partial offer/partial answer draft to reflect the
>> conversations we had in Vancouver:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-mmusic-pof-pan-02
>>
>> Diffs:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-roach-mmusic-pof-pan-02.txt
>>
>> Note that this relies on the following draft for group membership
>> manipulation:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-mmusic-groupid
>>
>> Please point out whether you think I've missed any of the Vancouver
>> discussions or other feedback. Thanks!
>>
>> /a
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.