Subject: [ANCP] draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:48:19 -0400

I have finished my review of draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06. 
Fortunately, I have not identified any further substantive issues other 
than the two I reported to the list the other day, but I do propose 
quite a few editorial changes. I could enumerate them if so desired.

I need direction going forward. Shall I update the document with all my 
proposed changes and do a separate draft for the new 0x54 error code? I 
could delete explicit reference to that code in the multicast extensions 
draft, so we wouldn't have a dependency issue holding up publication. 
Then the new error code draft could be held open if implementers think 
they might come up with other base-level error codes.

Tom Taylor

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:38:22 +0200

Tom,

It does seem to make sense to create a separate draft defining the error
code and its associated handling if we think that it would be of use
elsewhere and off it might be added to.

I propose the following way forward:

- Create a cleaned up version of the MC extensions draft
- create a separate error codes draft
- Run a short 1 week WG LC on the changes to the MC extensions draft.
- WG LC the error codes draft once MC extensions has gone to the IESG.

Regards

Matthew

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:00:40 +0200

> - WG LC the error codes draft once MC extensions has gone to the IESG.

Works for me.

Francois

> _______________________________________________
> ANCP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp