[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multi6 WG Last Calls closed
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
In my opinion, the two big open issues are
Thierry Ernst: "to be honest, I don't
really understand the value of the document."
As I already said, we are chartered to produce this document,
but its value is indeed "for the record". Does the WG think that
is enough to justify publication?
I have no real strong feeling one way or the other. I do think that we
want this documented somewhere and if not in a separate document
perhaps this could be fitted into the architectural analysis? But I am
not sure that is the best place and I think that might add length to an
already quite long document.
I think the doc we have should be sufficiently useful, and besides,
we've been requested to do. I'd say just ship it and if the IESG
evaluation shows that it's not good enough, let's reconsider.
Pekka Savola: "The document is rather long and conversational
in tone." (plus specific comments related to this view).
Does the WG agree with Pekka, to the point of asking for a
major revision effort?
To be clear, even though I said "rather long and conversational in
tone", I was *not* asking the document to be rewritten to _not_ be
What I was hoping was maybe some more structure and changes in the
document's organization so that the "conversation" would be more
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings