Re: [mpls] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> Does that meet the discuss criteria?

"Did the working group consider <x>?" absolutely does, yes.  And I
find it disturbing that you would rather ask that question than
address the question I'm asking.

Barry

>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 07:08, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [Adding the MPLS WG]
>>
>> That's a pretty fine question, Barry.
>>
>> I'd say that, despite the care and work of the working group, it is possible that another gap will be identified. However, I think that might be a lowish possibility and that any new gaps might form a small percentage of the total gaps analysed.
>>
>> So, my judgement is that this is a bridge to cross when we get there, but others might comment.
>>
>> And, yes, we can take a pass on the references.
>>
>> A
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: iesg [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
>>> Sent: 23 November 2014 06:49
>>> To: The IESG
>>> Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap@tools.ietf.org
>>> Subject: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03: (with DISCUSS
>>> and COMMENT)
>>>
>>> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03: Discuss
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This is a DISCUSS in the truest sense: I'd like to discuss a question
>>> with the shepherd and/or AD, and I fully expect to resolve the question
>>> satisfactorily from that.
>>>
>>> The first thing I wondered was why this shouldn't be something maintained
>>> in a place other than an RFC, and I found that covered well in the
>>> shepherd writeup. Thanks for that!
>>>
>>> What I continue to wonder is whether, in having that discussion, the
>>> working group considered what the likelihood is of discovering more gaps
>>> as they (and other working groups) work on dealing with these.  If so, I
>>> wonder what the working group's plan is for documenting those.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I submit that a good number of the references really are normative, in
>>> that understanding them is necessary in order to understand this
>>> document.  I'd like to see the authors sort that out, and make an
>>> appropriate split in the references, so readers can know which ones truly
>>> do just add extra detail (informative), and which provide necessary
>>> background (normative).  That said, I don't consider that important
>>> enough to this document to block on it, so this is a non-blocking
>>> comment.  Please consider doing this, but there is no need to respond to
>>> me about it.  Thanks.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>