Re: [tcpm] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt

I think we need others to speak up, so we can come to consensus on  
what to do here.

Lars

On 2008-12-4, at 3:09, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Fernando Gont
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:29 AM
>>
>>> Basically, David's comment is asking for some text that WG consensus
>>> had removed from the document, and we need to come to an agreement  
>>> on
>>> whether we want to revisit this consensus and add some text or point
>>> to another document, or if we want to tell David that he's on the
>>> rough side of the consensus.
>>
>> FWIW, my personal take is that adding a reference to that PDF can
>> address David's comments without having to add text back to the I-D.
>>
>
>
> My personal opinion is that this is going to be published as an
> RFC, and if all we need is a paragraph extracted from the other
> document to describe the issue, then we should do that rather
> than add a citation (dependency).  This keeps the RFC self-contained,
> and removes the issue of people not being able to find the
> other document 20 years from now, or misunderstanding the context
> of that document as some kind of approved supplement to the RFC.
>
> Just my < $0.02 :).

Re: [tcpm] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt

Attachment: smime.p7s