Hi John,
> > After the extensive discussion regarding the intended status and > > relation to RFC2309, a significant consensus has been reached to > > proceed by obsoleting RFC2309 with this new draft. > > (I did not, and do not, join that consensus.) > > I don't intend to formally appeal this statement of consensus (though I > would appreciate the Document Shepherd noting the consensus is "rough"); > but I will have to raise a few of my points during IETF Last-Call. :^( Noted, your objection will be included in the shepherd write-up for the IESG. >> The objections raised both on procedural grounds (RFC2309 was the >> output of the E2E group, best compared to an IRTF document today), > > I am genuinely interested in who raise that objection (I didn't). Let me rephrase this - it was not so much as an objection by one specific person, but an open question which was considered between the Authors, WG chairs, ADs and the IRTF chair. Also, the authors are still busy working on an update which includes your earlier points, in particular the relationship between this document and RFC2309, and your other suggestions. I will follow up with you to see, if at least some of the concerns you have with -06 will have been addressed in the upcoming -07 revision. Best regards, Richard Scheffenegger _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
