----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Whittle" <[email protected]> To: "RRG" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:04 AM
> Hi Tony, > > In "Re: [rrg] RG Last Call: ILNP document set", thanks for pointing out: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5743#section-2.1 > > Since I understand there is consensus support for publishing the ILNP > IDs as IRTF RFCs and since it is a formal requirement: > > There must be a statement in the abstract identifying it as the > product of the RG. > > I withdraw my request that the statement be removed. > > > The constraints are pretty much set forth in RFC 5743. In > > addition, documents should reflect something that the group has > > already discussed. > > > > Further, we strongly would like to get RG consensus that the > > document is in a state where it should be published. Note that > > this is not an endorsement of the content, but consensus that > > the quality of the document is sufficient to be a product of > > the RG. > > Given the evident constraints on RRG participants reading and > commenting meaningfully on anything with substantial detail, I think > the ILNP IDs are short and simple enough to achieve such consensus. > > I would not attempt to write up Ivip as RRG RFCs, since there is no > evidence that sufficient RRG folk have the time or inclination to > read and comment on something of Ivip's length and detail. > > You and many other regular RRG contributors have had three years to > read and comment on Ivip - and you have not done so. > > Distributed Real Time Mapping has been perfectly well explained, with > nice diagrams: > > http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/drtm/ > > for 3 months - and no-one has commented on it. <snip> > At future years I intend to write up Ivip and DRTM more thoroughly > and hopefully write some code for a test network. Until then, please > see: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06823.html > > in response to Tom Petch (msg06831) regarding his suggestion I write > RFCs for the CES/CEE distinction and for DRTM. I know; a request for an RFC is not the same as a detailed critique of the I-D but it almost counts as a comment on the I-D. Tom Petch > - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
