As long as you give me an editing green light then..
I will go back over the comments in a bit more
detail.. seems like there is one I disagreed with.. but
all the rest are fine :-D
R
Lars Eggert wrote:
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
--
Randall Stewart
NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc.
803-345-0369 <or> 803-317-4952 (cell)
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
