[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt
On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:58, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 7:21 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Mar 26, 2007, at 23:42, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As a co-author (and of course I was recused in the IESG
discussion) my main concern is to see the RFC published ASAP. [...]
As a member of the community who will have to live with the text
of this RFC until it can be obsoleted by future revisions, I'd
like to suggest that the co-author's desires to see the document
published as quickly as possible should be secondary to concerns
from the working group that the RFC not be misleading.
Do you feel that the document is misleading? That is something I
have not heard the working group say.
I do think the document needs editorial changes to keep from
misleading readers. I have no technical objections to the
informational content of the document, and I'm in full support of its
publication as an Informational RFC. It's the editorial content of
the document to which I'm objecting.
Please review my messages on 2007-03-12 and 2007-03-13 and the thread
of related discussion.
I don't have anything to add to those remarks at this time. I
apologize for not providing these comments at an earlier date, but I
have only recently joined the working group. I raised the issues as
soon as they came to my attention.
james woodyatt <email@example.com>
member of technical staff
apple computer, inc.