{please ignore unicast message I sent thirty seconds ago}
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> I think that it would be useful to have a new column to easily tag the
> status of an assignment. Deprecated ones can be marked as such using
> that new column, instead of having this in the description.
okay, I couldn't quite understand this from the diff, but in principal I have
no problem with that.
> For the DE guidance, I'm afraid that the first part of your text is
redundant with what is already in 8126, especially this part:
> For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
> designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and
> their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily
> available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
> interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
So, a reason why I wrote that slight redundant text is so that the engineer
who is trying to get their marketing person to put the document out in a sane
place, would have a single place to point to.
But, if the WG feels that redundant, I can go with that.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
