My head is spinning.
Not a good sign given that you wrote the draft in question...
The draft (ignoring 3683) restores 2418 and adds the extra powers
created by 3934.
Yes, I think that's a fair statement of the intent and pretty close
to the specifics as well - as long as you ignore 3683.
I've been told by the author of 3934 that removing
the powers created by 2418 was not intended (even though there is
no other way to read the words in 3934). So I think the question on
the table is: does the community want the union of the powers created
by 2418 and 3934?
Well, my understanding is that the questions on the table are first,
whether or not this draft should move forward as-is, and if it should
not, what parts of it are OK and what parts aren't.
My objection to the current draft is quite simply that it obsoletes 3683. I
would be OK with what it does to 2418 and 3934 as long any material that
changes the status of 3683 is removed.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf