As a co-author, I didn't want to remain silent per se, so I'll at least
be public in my view.
I think the doc is good, but I do take Alissa's concerns to point - it
might be preferable to remove section 3.3 and leave this doc as a
comparison of solutions, and avoid any recommendation of a way forward
at this point.
Joe
On 6/27/2012 8:57 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi all,
The WGLC on this draft ended with no comments at all. In this context,
we cannot assume that silence equates to consent. In order for this
draft to progress, we need people to read the draft and provide their
opinions on whether the draft is ready. To enable people to comment, the
last call period is extended until Friday July 6, 2012.
Thanks
Suresh and Julien
On 06/08/2012 10:06 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi all,
This message starts a two week intarea working group last call on
advancing the draft about Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a
Host Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments as an
Informational RFC. The draft is available at
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02
Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing
this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial
suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. This last call will
conclude on June 22, 2012.
Regards,
Suresh & Julien
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
