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

Does that meet the discuss criteria?

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> 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