Terry Since the IETF Last Call on this I-D ended, there have been five new versions of this I-D incorporating, IMHO, substantive changes to the I-D, e.g. introducing a new YANG module for tunnel types, IETF-wide.. I think that the changes are good (although I have not had time to digest them all yet) but since there are so many, I think that this I-D can no longer be regarded as the one that the softwires WG forwarded for publication. Rather, I think that the I-D should be returned to the WG to confirm that this is still what the WG wants. It is not that I would expect the WG to want to make further substantive changes, rather that the IETF needs to know that this is what the softwire WG wants, and at present, I do not think that we can be sure of that. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "tom petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "ietf" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <softwires@xxxxxxxx>; <softwire-chairs@xxxxxxxx>; <jiangsheng@xxxxxxxxxx>; <draft-ietf-softwire-yang@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:49 PM Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06.txt> (YANG Modules for IPv4-in-IPv6 Address plus Port Softwires) to Proposed Standard
