[Ietf-lac] Es importante asistir a las reuniones? (Fwd: Errata 5173 on RFC8200)

[Fernando Gont]

Datapoint. (el mensaje en cuestion lo envie por la lista de 6man)


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Errata 5173 on RFC8200
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 13:31:29 +0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at gmail.com>
CC: Ole Troan <otroan at employees.org>, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com>, 6man
WG <ipv6 at ietf.org>

On 9/8/19 03:11, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
>> On Aug 6, 2019, at 7:42 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com 
>> <mailto:fgont at si6networks.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 6/8/19 14:18, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> Fernando,
>>> 
[....]
>> 
>> At the point in which there is so much text to be replaced, that's
>> when I start to consider that a quick bis document is the way to
>> go. -- I have no idea about the mechanism to do it (if it can be
>> AD-sponsored, or what). And, as noted, rasing any other discussion
>> or rehashing any other rfc2460bis arguments would be out of scope,
>> of course.
> 
> I think as Brian raised in his earlier mail up thread, there does
> not seem to be much appetite in the WG to do a bis document (though
> it was one of the options Bob brought up in his presentation). After
> we agree on the replacement text in the WG, let's decide how to go
> about effecting the changes.

I watched the recording and there wasn't much of a discussion on the
topic. I think the question and the options should be posed to the wg on
the mailing-list. I have no idea what that would converge to, but I do
think the question should be posed to the wg on list, rather than
assuming that's a no-go because nobody argued in favour of it at the
meeting.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492