Re: [v6ops] IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

You all might consider that "what to do about it" is already being
proposed as a WG doc in OPSEC.

So I disagree with the entire logic of the idea of sequential
publication in this case. It only opens up continued need for
coordination between WGs.

Joe

On 10/2/2014 6:13 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2014, at 12:51, Metzler, Dan J <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>> I would think that if it’s much easier to agree on “here’s what I
>> saw”, then it would work better if the first draft includes the
>> problem statement, and then later drafts flesh out “here’s what to do
>> about it”.  Even in practice, simply agreeing on the nature of the
>> problem, is of limited value without the knowledge of solutions, or
>> even the knowledge that a solution may not exist yet.  Even if there
>> are multiple solutions to a problem, it is always important to state
>> the problem that each solution is designed to solve when presenting
>> any solution.
>>
> 
> Indeed. As an author of the ‘what I saw’ it seems appropriate to
> document an issue that others can discuss and decide what action(s) to
> take.  
> 
> So separation of authorship is one thing.
> 
> Another is that there might be multiple ‘here’s what to do about it’
> documents, as there have been with other operational problem statements.
> There might be Informational or BCP documents in v6ops suggesting
> mitigation methods, and/or there might be protocol changes through 6man.
> 
> Tim