On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:42 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > Do you suggest the I-D should elaborate further on the FQDN use cases so this > to be acceptable by the IESG? > > Chairs, how should we proceed? The version which passed the WG LC is not the > 05.
I'm confused. The current version of the draft is the -05 version, which makes no mention of FQDNs. You seem to be discussing the -04 version. Presumably the -05 version is the one that's meant to be published, so why are you discussing the -04 version? If the name option is needed, then the right thing to do is to issue a new draft. Since the draft would be substantially changed, and in a way that's contrary to the comments from the DHC working group, this would need to be re-reviewed by the DHC working group, and would need a new last call in the Softwires working group. It would be entirely inappropriate for such a substantial change to be made during IESG review without further review by the DHC and Softwires working groups, and without another last call. You would certainly need to explain the use case for the Name option--what value it adds that is missing from the address option. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
