Tom,

AFAIKS, the WGLC that Chris suggested in the email below can proceed:

- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg02263.html

The updates that Chris requested seem to be addressed in the two versions that 
have been posted since then. Chris, do you agree?

                                               Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:24 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ronald Bonica" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11 PM
> > Folks,
> >
> > Thanks for introducing this document!
> >
> > I would like to bring the authors' attention to the following
> documents that are working in OPSEC:
> >
> > - draft-behringer-lla-only
> > - draft-baker-opsec-passive-ip-address
> >
> > To some extent, draft-grow and draft-behringer are debating with one
> another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it
> is not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are
> being considered in different WGs.
> 
> I think it a bigger shame that draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores is
> not in the RFC Editor queue awaiting publication!
> 
> It is a natural companion to RFC6598 and could have, should have, been
> in the queue at the same time.  This I-D was relevant when it was first
> written 2 years ago, and I see its relevance decreasing with time, as
> people stumble over the mistakes that this I-D could have prevented.
> It has taken those 2 years to get this I-D IETF-ready, little has
> changed in the content in that time, and it is time we got it out of
> the door.
> 
> Of course there is scope for improvement, there always is, but that is
> an argument for never publishing anything.  If the authors of the other
> I-Ds want to build on it, then of course they can produce a bis that
> covers more, but let's publish what we have got.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> >
> > For the purpose of discussing these three documents, I think that a
> little cross-posting is acceptable.
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Ron Bonica
> > vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GROW mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to