Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Ron Bonica wrote:
>
>>Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Bonica wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The problem is that anything short of having this be standards-track
>>>>>means that future standards-track docs _need_ not consider this work at
>>>>>all. If that's not the goal, than this needs to go a different track.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jari,
>>>>
>>>>Is there some requirement for PS that this document does not meet?
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>
>>>IMO, PS would require a much more complete description of the specific
>>>changes to RFCs 792 and 1122.
>>
>>Could you describe those changes? Maybe we can make them.
>
>
> It's hard to say in each specific case; a good example of what *I*
> expect (at least) of a mod to a spec is in
> draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-simple-auth-00.txt (which mods only RFCs 793 and 2385).
>
> Joe
>
Joe,
I am afraid that your response doesn't help me very much. Maybe I am
just being obtuse, but by looking at draft-touch-tcpm-simple-auth, I am
not able to identify a requirement for publication as PS that
draft-bonica-internet-icmp does not meet.
Maybe somebody else can formulate a response to my initial question? Jari?
Ron
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
