I agree with Mike. Without a discussion of the issues raised and how to resolve them, I think it’s premature to start a w.g. last call.
I also note that the draft expired January 3, 2019, over eight months ago. Bob > On Oct 18, 2019, at 7:58 AM, C. M. Heard <[email protected]> wrote: > > The document (version -06, expired 2019-01-03) is unchanged since last year's > IETF last call that started in November 2018. That version drew a lot of > substantive comments that have not been addressed (see thread starting at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KKyXXrvHa5r5mNcqlu_CbkktQmY). > Isn't a WGLC without any discussion of these issues (not even to dismiss > them) somewhat premature? Would it not be more appropriate to comb through > the last call threads, extract the substantive comments, and make a > considered decision what to do about each, possibly after submitting a new > version without changes to un-expire the document? > > As a reminder, one of the substantive objections raised was that the document > recommends blanket discarding of unknown next header values, violating RFC > 7045. Expect this to come up again as both a technical and process issue if > it's not fixed (for the latter see Brian Carpenter's comments in > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c0DyXd_rLtMCrHQ3NmmRRGe7Z-A). > > Mike Heard > > On Thu, 17 October 2019 15:18 UTC Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > This begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering. Please post your > comments by 10/31/2019. > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
