On May 26, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > I like the draft and I think it covers the motivational points well. > > as a general comment, I do think the document is too wordy. could the authors > make the next revision terser or do you want me to propose text changes? > > I would also suggest that you reference the sections in rfc1958 on state. > we don't have a good success record in gleaning state in the middle of the > network (NAT, N:1 VLANs, DHCP...), since the protocols we 'glean' from aren't > designed to maintain softstate in the network. > > I see no reason why this document shouldn't be adopted as a working group > document immediately.
I support this becoming a WG document, and agree with Ole that the next version should cut back on text. We want to give the IESG something as clear and concise as possible. If there is reasonable consensus (not that the document is complete, but that it will be the basis for the final document), all it takes is an OK by the chairs and a submission by the authors with the WG title. - Mark > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
