Hi Ron, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:05 AM > To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > 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.
I think that box has already been thrown open. Since I have done you the favor of commenting on your draft it would seem reasonable to ask you to also comment on mine. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > 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
