[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- To: "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>
- Subject: Re: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
- Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:57:45 +0200
- Cc: gwz@cisco.com, 'Frank Quick' <fquick@qualcomm.com>, "'Nelson, David'" <dnelson@enterasys.com>, 'Barney Wolff' <barney@databus.com>, 'Avi Lior' <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, 'Thomas Narten' <narten@us.ibm.com>, "'Carroll, Christopher P.'" <Ccarroll@ropesgray.com>, gerry.flynn@verizonwireless.com, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
- In-reply-to: <422989A6.9040602@cisco.com>
- References: <200503050419.j254Jllu022660@ams-core-1.cisco.com> <422989A6.9040602@cisco.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
Hi Mark,
I think that adding some history or context to the note, as you suggest
below,
would be useful in any case.
--Jari
W. Mark Townsley wrote:
Perhaps including text that the document was not adequately reviewed
in a timely manner by the IETF before deployment would help displace
the author blame/punishment that Jari is concerned about? Then, could
we use the harsher language?
I'm afraid that if we stick to the more light/diplomatic speak the
message we are trying to convey will be lost in the numbers and
indirection. That is, the uninformed reader (which is the one we are
targeting with this note) might not realize that something along the
lines of "is not consistent with RFC XXXX" is anything they should be
worried about or not. Such a statement really only speaks in any
obvious way to those who (1) know what RFC XXXX is, and (2) that being
inconsistent with it is something that the IETF is concerned about.
--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>