Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-01

["George, Wes" <[e-mail]>]

>>How about we move the pointers to any work-in-progress to address the
>>gaps to appendix, would that be a good compromise?
>
>I would not want to loose the consolidated references, but perhaps we need
>to be more precise about a why we are pointing to each I-D. Pointing as
>expanding the gap is OK, and maybe moving the ³solution I-Ds² to an
>Appendix is a good idea.

I'm not convinced that much will be gained by such a change. It seems like
change for the sake of change. I will go along with it if WG consensus
pushes that direction, but my preference would be to leave the references
as-is. If we know something is in progress that is trying to address the
problem, why not document what we know in the same places as we discuss
the gaps? What value is there in hiding these things in an appendix just
because we aren't completely certain that what we believe will address the
gap will actually address the gap?

Thanks,

Wes


Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
-----------



This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.