Joe,
I fully agree. It *is* OK for a PS to focus on current implementation. In fact,
RFC 2784 does exactly that! The current draft, because it is intended to UPDATE
RFC 2784, explicitly inherits that tone.
So, let's avoid the conversation about how things should be. That conversation
is not likely to converge soon.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:09 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; Templin, Fred L; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
>
> Hi, Ron,
>
> On 2/24/2015 9:39 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > Because RFC 2784 is PS, and this document UPDATES the procedures
> > defined in RFC 2784, we have no choice but to ask for PS. (You can't
> > UPDATE a PS with INFORMATIONAL).
>
> Sure.
>
> > So, I guess we have no choice other than to discuss what should be.
>
> I disagree. It's OK to have a PS focus on the currently deployed protocol,
> even if it updates another PS.
>
> > Please make your case that what we have in
> > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 is not what should be.
>
> I don't want to open that can of worms, and past experience with this WG is
> that they don't either.
>
> Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
