Subject: multi6 WG Last Calls closed

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:24:11 +0100

Three multi6 WG Last Calls closed on November 3.

draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt
draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt
draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt

We had some good comments on all three drafts, and the
authors are requested to make the appropriate updates as
soon as possible. Most of the points seem to have been
resolved in email discussion, but any remaining specific
issues should be surfaced on this list.

In my opinion, the two big open issues are

  draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt
  Thierry Ernst: "to be honest, I don't
    really understand the value of the document."

  As I already said, we are chartered to produce this document,
  but its value is indeed "for the record". Does the WG think that
  is enough to justify publication?

  draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt
  Pekka Savola: "The document is rather long and conversational
    in tone." (plus specific comments related to this view).

  Does the WG agree with Pekka, to the point of asking for a
  major revision effort?

     Brian
     co-chair

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:42:37 +0100

(co-chair hat-off)

>  is enough to justify publication?

I have no real strong feeling one way or the other. I do think that we 
want this documented somewhere and if not in a separate document 
perhaps this could be fitted into the architectural analysis? But I am 
not sure that is the best place and I think that might add length to an 
already quite long document.

>  Does the WG agree with Pekka, to the point of asking for a

No.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:46:34 +0200 (EET)

> already quite long document.

I think the doc we have should be sufficiently useful, and besides, 
we've been requested to do.  I'd say just ship it and if the IESG 
evaluation shows that it's not good enough, let's reconsider.

>>  Does the WG agree with Pekka, to the point of asking for a

To be clear, even though I said "rather long and conversational in 
tone", I was *not* asking the document to be rewritten to _not_ be 
that.

What I was hoping was maybe some more structure and changes in the 
document's organization so that the "conversation" would be more 
manageable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:03:35 +0100

I think we are close enough to agreement to ask the authors of
all three last call documents to revise them ASAP for a final
check by the WG. That is:

Erik is also revising
  draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-01.txt
in response to IESG comments.

    Brian

Pekka Savola wrote:
> tone", I was *not* asking the document to be rewritten to _not_ be that.
>