Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Request to publish draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07.txt

From: Shubhranshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:34:49 +0530

Alex,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Shubhranshu" <[email-masked]>
>
> Shubhranshu wrote:
> [...]
>>    4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
>> you believe
>> the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are
>> uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns
>> whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues
>> have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it
>> still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the
>> write-up.
>>
>> NO.
>
> No?
>
> I've just raised yesterday an issue about multicast interpretation
> confusion between manetarch and problem statement documents.  HAs that
> been solved already?  A decision made?  The issue is here, and the
> following thread keeps the subject:
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg00771.html
>
> Was there a decision made with respect to this issue?  It seems like the
> confusing issue around multicast that I've raised is completely ignored??
>

If the community thinks there are issues that really needs to be
addressed before moving this document forward then I'd be willing to
ask for postponement.

Why do you think there is a WGLC in the process ? I remember you
saying at the WG mailing list, about a couple of weeks after WGLC for
this ID ended, that you have some comments on section 5.1 but
"Otherwise - yes, I'm fine with the document." !! According to the ID
authors those comments were minor in nature and is addressed in the
later version. I am not sure if you or anyone would not have any
confusion or new thoughts even after, say, one year of further
discussions.

> Alex
> PS: I removed IESG from Cc to not create further problems.  But you
>     understand what I mean.

Irrespective of you keep them in CC or not, they are aware of the status.

- Shubhranshu

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:37:32 +0100

Shubhranshu wrote:
> Alex,
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandru Petrescu" 
> <[email-masked]> To: "Shubhranshu" 
> <[email-masked]>
>> Shubhranshu wrote: [...]
>>> 4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document 
>>> that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For 
>>> example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the 
>>> document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it.
>>>  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and 
>>> the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the 
>>> document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
>>> 
>>> NO.
>> No?
>> 
>>  confusion between manetarch and problem statement documents.  HAs 
>> that been solved already?  A decision made?  The issue is here, and
>>  the following thread keeps the subject: 
>> Was there a decision made with respect to this issue?  It seems 
>> like the confusing issue around multicast that I've raised is 
>> completely ignored??
>> 
> 
> "Otherwise - yes, I'm fine with the document." !!

Shubhranshu: yes, until I stumbled across this inconsistency
with respect to multicast in the problem-statement document.

> According to the ID authors those comments were minor in nature and 
> is addressed in the later version. I am not sure if you or anyone 
> would not have any confusion or new thoughts even after, say, one 
> year of further discussions.

I will not stir this any further.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Shubhranshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:50:29 +0530

Alex,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Shubhranshu" <[email-masked]>
<snip>
> I will not stir this any further.

Your constructive comments are always welcomed and appreciated.

- Shubhranshu