Ole, My apologies if my coments cam across the wrong way. PLease find my comments in-line...
On 06/21/2013 10:23 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > >> This document has been suffering from unnecessary delays for almost a >> year now. > > this document was returned to the working group by the AD, after the IETF > last call. > to me that's a strong hint from the community that we didn't do a good enough > job > in the working group. I never understood why the document came back to the wg. What we had to address was, for the most part, the discussion fo the "NIC identifier" we were using. 90% of the other text that was added was the product of later wg discussions, and had nothing to do with the IETF LC. > before re-sending the document, I want to make sure we have > dotted every i and crossed every t. Isn't that what reviews are for? For instance, I polled every single guy that had provided comments since IETF LC to double-check that their feedback had been addressed. You mentioned that you planned to have a general discussion at the next IETF. Yet everything that had to do with IETF LC had nothing to d with "general issues", but rather with low level details (whether Interface Indexes are constant or not, etc.). Me, I personally think that if we rally want to make sure that the document is ready, we just need reviews in that direction. If we're ging to rewind back to WGLC, then, by itself, gives enough opportunities to review and comment (there's still IETF LC, etc.). > there are other interface-identifier mechanisms proposed, I want to make sure > we go back and > look at the bigger picture to ensure that we understand all the issues and > that we are reasonably > confident that we are done. We have beaten this one to death, for more than a year. If having to address low-level details in the I-D is going to be an opportunity to rewind one year in the publication process, it becomes difficult to make progress. I don't think one anyone would think that "we need to make sure we understand the bigger picture"... because the I-D was brought back to the wg for a low-level detail, and not for the "bigger picture". Just me trying to make progress. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
