Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt> (Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 08:36 25-10-2013, Barry Leiba wrote:
Third, your second paragraph above is really out of line.  So let's
back away a bit and look at the picture we're painting.

I looked at the Last Call comments and I found that the discussion has been between Cullen Jennings and Ted Lemon. The initial message was addressed to OPS ADs. It is IETF practice to watch the fireworks in such cases. Joe Abley commented about the DNSSEC validation issue. There was a long thread recently about that on some IETF mailing list.

The discussion then got down to process and there was a mention of the working group charter. There was a comment about IETF Consensus. There was then a question which was similar to a question on a different thread which was a little controversial.

This is the usual IETF recipe for discussions taking the wrong turn. I'll step back a little. The first version of this draft was posted in June 2007. The intended status of that draft was Informational. The intended status was change to Standards Track in December 2012. It was changed to BCP in June 2013.

The picture being painted is that cross-area review is lacking.

Regards,
-sm




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]