Re: [v6ops] draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop WGLC

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 19, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
 wrote:

> Hi, all,
> 
> I don't quite understand a WGLC on an individual submission. IMO, if it's a WG doc it needs to be opened up for substantial revision.
> 
> As an individual submission, I think it strays too far into the purview of this WG to be permitted.

I can see this both ways. v6ops has in the past sent individual documents this way when it agreed to them. My perspective is that the draft is largely agreed to and is close to being ready to move on. If we need to rework it in some way, we can have the reworked draft as a working group document. If we agree to it as it stands, I'm not sure I see the mechanical point.

> On the specific point of content, the paragraph at the end of the intro is disingenuous; Section 2.2 is far too brief to be considered anything but dismissive of the cons of dropping fragments, and the rest of the document reads like justification of that behavior.

Ack. Thanks.

> Joe
> 
> On 8/18/2013 11:00 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop.  Please read it now. If you find nits
>> (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the
>> authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a
>> statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed,
>> please post your comments to the list.
>> 
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
>> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
>> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
>> comment to make.
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.  
Albert Einstein