Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825

From: Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com
Date: Tue Apr 21 2009 - 11:06:03 EDT

Keith,

IEEE needs a conclusion on this document asap. Do you have a technical argument against 3825bis? The restructuring issues can be handled at a later stage.

My answer to Richard's question: YES.

- gabor

>-----Original Message-----
>From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:19 AM
>To: Richard Barnes
>Cc: 'GEOPRIV'
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825
>
>I have just created a diff of the RFC against the I-D. Because there has
>been some radical restructuring, and because there have been attempts to
>do a complete rewrite, this is not the direction I want to see this work
>go. Therefore I must still reject the 3825bis draft as a starting point.
>
>In my view the effective changes on the document must be much less
>radical, i.e. no restructuring of the document, no rewrite of clauses
>where we are not attempting to address problems, and so on.
>
>regards
>
>Keith
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:21 AM
>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> Cc: 'GEOPRIV'
>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825
>>
>> Keith,
>>
>> What Hannes said is correct: The question is whether the
>> document in question should be used as a starting point for
>> the WG document. The issue of scope is independent of this
>> question (but related, since one would like the starting
>> point to be close to the goal), since the document will be
>> revised to meet the needs of the WG.
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> > I have some major problems with this question, and
>> therefore the answer has to be no.
>> >
>> > The underlying basis for any revision has to be RFC3825. I
>> am not in favour of a carte blanche replacement of RFC 3825.
>> In the absence of consensus, current 3825 requirements prevail.
>> >
>> > What we should be attempting to do is fix the problems in
>> RFC 3825. So I would prefer questions asked on: Do we agree
>> on the fix of a specific issues.
>> >
>> > Keith
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>> >> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:43 AM
>> >> To: 'GEOPRIV'
>> >> Subject: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825
>> >>
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> Based on the prior thread about the scope of 3825 fixes, it sounds
>> >> like the closest of the three proposed documents to what
>> people want
>> >> is draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03. So I would like to put the
>> >> following question to the group:
>> >>
>> >> Should the WG document for revisions to RFC 3825 be based on
>> >> draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03?
>> >>
>> >> Please respond to the list by Monday, 27 April 2009.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> --Richard
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Geopriv mailing list
>> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> >>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:06:03 +0200

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 21 2009 - 11:08:00 EDT