The latest version from Bob works for me, and I also agree this can be
done in AUTH48.
I also wanted to comment on the process. Sometimes we do hit issues in
AUTH48. Small changes, even technical, may be doable in AUTH48, but they
should always be confirmed with the working group, and sometime
> We think this is OK for an AUTH48 change
I agree, we can call this editorial.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-08-06 09:32, Bob Hinden wrote:
> After some discussion between the author, chairs, and Suresh who raised the
> issue, we think the following text will resolve the issue and can be
After some discussion between the author, chairs, and Suresh who raised the
issue, we think the following text will resolve the issue and can be done in
AUTH48:
4.2.1. Shorten as Much as Possible
The use of the symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability.
For example, 2001:db8:0:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:15:40AM +0200, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
> This is a very nice approach. So 4.2.1 would be like
>
> 4.2.1. Shorten as Much as Possible
>If at least two consecutive 16-bit 0 fields are present, the
>symbol "::" MUST be used, and used to its maximum capacity.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
snip
> This is a less invasive change (and I think the WG had previously some
> concensus on this, but the WG chairs will know). But yes, the formally
> correct procedure is likely the errata approach.
This was bothering me a bit and I went back to p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has
>> considered the draft and said what it wanted to say, and at this
>> point the RFC Editor is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Its 9:00am in the morning in Tokyo
(my excuss for the late response)
and thanks to everyone for their comments.
I really have to appologise for the misuse of the AUTH48.
While most people would think that the original
text is good enough (at least tha
On 2010-08-05 09:15, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On 10-08-04 03:21 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Suresh,
>>
>> On 8/4/10 2:46 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> ...
>>> Not really. The text you quoted does not state whether "::" MUST always
>>> be used if it is possible to do so. It only state
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:44:46PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
> >
> >> I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has
> >> considered the draft and said what i
Hi Brian,
On 10-08-04 03:21 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Suresh,
On 8/4/10 2:46 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
...
Not really. The text you quoted does not state whether "::" MUST always
be used if it is possible to do so. It only states that when used, it
must be used to the maximum capability.
I
; Cc:
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation AUTH48 change
>>
> ...
>>> I am not certain whether this is appropriate, but I think this issue
>>> should be fixed before publication. Otherwise the d
Hi Tom,
On 10-08-04 01:30 PM, t.petch wrote:
e
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Suresh Krishnan"
To: "Brian Haberman"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation AUTH48 change
...
I am not
On Aug 4, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has
>> considered the draft and said what it wanted to say, and at this
>> point the RFC Editor is asking you whether
e
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Suresh Krishnan"
To: "Brian Haberman"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation AUTH48 change
> Hi Brian,
>
> On 10-08-04 11:58 AM, Bria
On 8/4/10 12:15 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On 10-08-04 11:58 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Seiichi,
>>
>> First off, this type of change is not appropriate for AUTH48.
>
> I am not certain whether this is appropriate, but I think this issue
> should be fixed before publication
Seiichi,
These changes are out of scope for an AUTH48 change. AUTH48 is only to verify
the edits that the RFC-Editor performed and for other editorial changes.
If you really think these changes are very important, then the document would
need to come back to the working group and restart the p
Hi Brian,
On 10-08-04 11:58 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Seiichi,
First off, this type of change is not appropriate for AUTH48.
I am not certain whether this is appropriate, but I think this issue
should be fixed before publication. Otherwise the document fails to
achieve its stated goal.
Seiichi,
First off, this type of change is not appropriate for AUTH48.
On 8/4/10 7:26 AM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
> Hi
>
> This already came up on the list once before,
> and since its in AUTH48 now, I would like to
> make the changes to the document.
>
> Current section 4.2 has 3 parts, a
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
> I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has
> considered the draft and said what it wanted to say, and at this
> point the RFC Editor is asking you whether they changed the intent
> of the draft in the editing process or
Seiichi Kawamura писал в своём письме Wed, 04 Aug
2010 15:26:09 +0400:
Current section 4.2 has 3 parts, and the first two are
4.2.1. Shorten as Much as Possible
The use of the symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability.
For example, 2001:db8::0:1 is not acceptable, because th
4 10:04 AM, t.petch wrote:
I object.
I think that the existing text is clearer than the text you want to replace it
with.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Seiichi Kawamura"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:26 PM
Subject: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation AUTH48
I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has considered the draft
and said what it wanted to say, and at this point the RFC Editor is asking you
whether they changed the intent of the draft in the editing process or whether
perhaps your address has changed. Changing the draft in a
I object.
I think that the existing text is clearer than the text you want to replace it
with.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Seiichi Kawamura"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:26 PM
Subject: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation AUTH48 change
> -BEG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
This already came up on the list once before,
and since its in AUTH48 now, I would like to
make the changes to the document.
Current section 4.2 has 3 parts, and the first two are
4.2.1. Shorten as Much as Possible
The use of the symbol "::"
24 matches
Mail list logo
