Ron Bonica wrote:
> 
> 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.

Sorry, but my involvement in providing text for this document exceeds
what I consider the 'author' bound. Since there isn't room for that, a
corollary description is the best I can do.

> Maybe somebody else can formulate a response to my initial question? Jari?
> 
>                               Ron

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to