On 09/25/2014 11:32 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > On 9/24/2014 11:56 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> For the record, Opsec is considering adopting the draft, not v6ops; > > I'm including both groups in this response. > >> Gunter asked v6ops to chime in on the discussion in opsec. The author >> has been asking both sets of chairs, and I haven’t seen the >> groundswell of support, or even comment, that would lead in the >> direction of v6ops adoption. > > When a doc is "shopped around", that tells me it's not ready for > anything. The ADs should determine where a doc belongs and should alert > related WGs at that time - and during WGLC.
The document has never been "shopped around". Please see my response to Fred. >> What v6ops or opsec would be chartered to do is give advice. > > Agreed. IMO, advice should be limited to explaining cases that fall > under MAY or SHOULD in other documents. > > Anything that overrides a MUST or MUST NOT needs to happen in the WG > chartered to update the original doc; AFAICT, that's only INTAREA in > this case (if not, it's certainly not *OPS or *MAN). Could you please point out which part of this I-D overrides a MUST or SHOULD? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
