Hi Remi, >- 4rd-00 also differs from 4rd-u-06 (editorial improvements and one technical >novelty, clearly announced to the WG in >www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04256.html). This also >raised AFAIK *no objection" from anyone. > - Then, after discussions of 4rd-00 on the WG mailing list, it appeared that > the specification could be further improved regarding a security issue (maybe > minor, but real). At this point I made the mistake to issue 4rd-01, with this > improvement, BEFORE asking for WG approval. Joel Halpern kindly warned me > about the procedure infringement, which I acknowledged on the list.
> => fairness can then be restored if I post a 4rd-02 identical to 4rd-00, thus > relegating 4rd-01 to what it should have been, a proposal only submitted by > its authors. > Hoping this is acceptable, I wait for your answer before doing anything. No problems. Go ahead and submit the -02 identical to -00. We can handle any further issues using the issue tracker. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
