Ted said:
"If there are problems with the document, part of the adoption process should
be the identification of those flaws and an agreement to address them. So
bringing up those flaws during the adoption process is crucial to the process."
[BA] I would agree that there should be an agreement
On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
> because you don't like the existing content.
WG adoption is a pretty heavy action. It states
Brian, in my experience working group adoption is more than the working
group agreeing to work on the topic. It is generally the working group
agreeing that the given document is a good basis for starting the work.
Yes, there will almost always be need for improvement. Sometimes
major improv
Re-,
I have two comments:
(1)
If one missed the following sentences in -04 "Below is listed as set of
requirements to be used to characterize
each use case (discussed in Section 3):" and "Once this list is stabilized,
each use case will be checked against
these requirements.", then the
Dear all,
FWIW, the latest version is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-05.
There is a section about privacy that basically refers to
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6967#section-3.
Identifying other privacy-related concerns that are not discussed in RF
Hi Med,
On 05/06/14 14:11, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> You referred in your message to an old version.
That was the one for which the adoption call was issued. I
guess just a typo.
I looked quickly at the diff between 04 and 05 and my
conclusion remains the same and
Hi Stephen,
You referred in your message to an old version. The latest version of the
document does not include any requirement, it is only an inventory of use cases
when problems are encountered. The latest version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiya,
On 05/06/14 08:05, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> If you want to review a document with privacy implications then
> have a look at the NAT reveal / host identifier work (with
> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 currently in
> a
If you want to review a document with privacy implications then have a
look at the NAT reveal / host identifier work (with
draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 currently in a call
for adoption).
I had raised my concerns several times now on the mailing list and
during the meetings.
