oh!... I am being sily: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-04
popped out of the sausage factory 8/26, so clearly you're talking from the revised doc already. So, instead of 'can you poke out a new version', how about: Can the commenters say whether or not the changes are sufficient to move this along to publication-requested? -chris (thanks anonymous commenter for sending me in the correct direction!) On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > if you could kick out a new version we can re-read and push this in > the right direction. > > thanks for the pokery so far though! :) > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Osterweil, Eric > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the comments Wes! >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 4:54 PM, "George, Wes" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think the authors need to look at this >>> http://iepg.org/2014-03-02-ietf89/ietf89_iepg_jmauch.pdf and make some >>> updates to section 7. Doesn’t really seem like all of those problems are >>> historical. >> >> Added that citation and some text, thanks! >> >>> It would be extremely helpful to have a summary or conclusion section that >>> makes it clearer which problems are still in need of a solution, >>> especially if the goal is to have IETF provide all or part of that >>> solution. I think that it is useful to categorize the problems into things >>> that are essentially old, solved problems and therefore used as FUD >>> objections vs things that are still known issues, but a clearer call to >>> action to resolve the still outstanding issues would make this draft much >>> stronger. >> >> >> Added, thanks! >> >>> Draft also needs text in the security considerations section. >> >> Added, thanks! >> >>> Lastly, why is this a standards-track document and not informational? >> >> Fixed! >> >> Eric >> _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
