>>>>> "Tschofenig," == Tschofenig, Hannes <hannes.tschofenig@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Tschofenig,> have you read, for example, the dhcp-civic draft? do
Tschofenig,> you think it is difficult to understand what the
Tschofenig,> document does and how the values in the location type
Tschofenig,> registry are used? it is not uncommon to split one
Tschofenig,> draft into multiple documents.
Yes, but when you split one document into multiple documents it is
important to write applicability statements, include normative
references or otherwise manage the applicability of your documents.
Several people have raised serious questions about whether the
location registry has too broad of scope. Your response so far seems
to be that you don't want to limit where the location registry is used
or describe how it is used in the registry document.
That's a fine opinion. The other side--that your document is too
broad and that different applications will have different needs for a
location registry so you should limit your document's scope until it
makes sense--is also a fine opinion.
And at some level some AD's going to have to decide whether the
objections raised on the IETF list count as a strong enough objection
to block rough consensus within the IETF.
It would be a lot easier if people could find a compromise. I think
that process starts by trying to understand the concern rather than
simply disagreeing with it.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf