On 9/11/13 2:40 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong <owen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I have to agree with Lorenzo here again. >> >> This document seems to me to be: >> >> 1. Out of scope for the IETF. > > Please define what is the IETF scope? IMHO, IETF is scoped to do with > IPv6 devices requirements and implementations. Do you think there is a > RFC that considers thoes requirements? The queue for dicussion of this point is closed. If there needs to be an appeal on this point now or in the future, then I'll be happy to help someone write it, but I consider that dicussion settled for the purposes of a draft that has already been tested for wg acceptance/wglc/ietf-lc > >> 2. So watered down in its language as to use many words to say nearly >> nothing. > > No, the draft says things, I think if you read nothing that you did > not read then. If you read, then what is your definition of saying > nothing? > >> 3. Claims to be informational, but with so many caveats about the nature of >> that >> information that it's hard to imagine what meaningful information an >> independent >> reader could glean from the document. > > I think this was mentioned clearly in the draft, which readers can understand. > >> >> Finally, given the spirited debate that has extended into this last call >> (which I honestly wonder >> how this ever saw last call over the sustained objections) definitely does >> not appear to have >> even rough consensus, nor does it appear to have running code. > > IMHO, the LC is not for consensus, but it is for us to send the IESG > our comments, and then they decide what is the IETF decision. >> >> Why is there such a push to do this? > > Why is there a push to water-down it? I still was not convinced by > your argument. However, Lorenzo comments should be considered by the > draft as the authors are working on. > > AB > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >