--On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 07:44 -0700 S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John, Randy, > > I posted a rough summary of the WGLC at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00636.html > Could you please submit a revision of > draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00 that takes into account the > comments received during the WGLC? > > I recommend avoiding any document changes that might even > accidentally introduce protocol changes, destabilize the > protocol, or introduce semantic or syntactic changes. Hi. I believe that I have already responded to that note at least once. A newly-constructed summary of the three issues listed in that note follows: (1) "SHOULD for RFC 6186". Such a normative requirement would be a very significant downreference. It would also be a new normative requirement, which is inappropriate when going to Full Standard under current rules, especially since I've seen little evidence that 6186 is widely enough deployed to justify a requirement in a Full Standard. As you note, I suggested that it might be appropriate to consider this if there were an implementation report on 6186 and (at least my implication) significant steps toward getting it to Draft Standard at least. I have seen no evidence of progress on either of those dimensions. I also note that RFC 6186 is not shown as Updating 4409. IMO, the proper course of action, consistent with your advice above, is to not include an explicit normative pointer to 6186. When 6186 is updated, the revised version might well be identified as updating 4409bis with the relevant pointers. No action in the current document is needed unless the co-chairs indicate that there is consensus to do something and provide clear instructions. (2) Mentioning RFC 5451. The only comments received indicated that this should be a matter for either 5451bis or 5322bis, not 4409. No action in the current document is needed unless the co-chairs indicate that there is consensus to do something and provide clear instructions. (3) "not able to determine a return path". I did not detect consensus to do anything about this. If the Chairs disagree, please advise. regards, john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
