On 2007-5-17, at 19:09, ext Randall Stewart wrote:
Lars: I will be asking for your advice throughout this reply to know what I can and cannot change...
As far as I remember, the motivation for wanting to tightly scope which modifications were OK going from RFC2960 to tsvwg-2960bis was to prevent tsvwg-2960bis from becoming SCTP version 2. The idea was that 2960bis would roll in bugfixes and errata items, and after six months could progress to Draft Standard, which would not be possible if new functions were being added.
That said, I haven't seen anything in Vijay's comments that I would interpret as changing the technical details of SCTP. All his review comments seem to ask for clarifications about the text of the document, which IMO is OK for tsvwg-2960bis.
I may have missed something - if you think that addressing a comment would change the operation of SCTP, please let me know. Otherwise, it's up to your discretion as editor whether you want to address the comments or not.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
