-- A. No Q. Is it sensible to top-post?
On May 22, 2012, at 5:23 AM, t.petch wrote: > ----- 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! Ok, so I guess the obvious question here is -- *why* is this not in the Ed queue (and please don't say "Because WGLC / LC hasn't happened yet, dummy" :-)). I spent a little time going back through the archives, but suspect I'm missing something / somethings (note: I have not read the meeting minutes yet)… There seems to be very little discussion regarding this / these, but the general impression I got was that the WG likes this draft and would like a: it to subsume -beringer- or b: to simply get published. It was unclear to me how many folk had read / supported the draft, but... I suspect that I'm missing some context / some off list discussions… Is this just a "someone needs to wave the WGLC wand" situation? W > > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
