On 2008-12-3, at 10:47, Fernando Gont wrote:
(FYI, the draft originally aimed at Std. Track, and discussed other
alternative approaches for dealing with the problem of long delays
between connection establishment attempts. Then we changed the draft
category to "Informational", to simply document this behavior. At
that point, the discussion of parallel connections and other
approaches was dropped).
I don't think just ignoring this problem is acceptable, but a
reference
to a discussion of what can be done about it in that RFC or some
other
document should suffice.
I have produced a separate PDF document with such a discussion, and
have provided a pointer to it in the Introduction. Please let me know
if you think this addresses the issue you raised.
WG: Is this okay with the working group, or is any other approach
preferred rather than the one I hve taken to adderss David's comments?
Quick follow-up: I have suggested to Fernando the alternative of
including a short section of text on just this issue in the document
itself, instead of referencing a PDF that includes a lot of other test
(the PDF is basically what used to be appendix A, which was removed
based on WG feedback). But that is also not aligned with prior WG
consensus, since it would move some text back that we had removed.
Basically, David's comment is asking for some text that WG consensus
had removed from the document, and we need to come to an agreement on
whether we want to revisit this consensus and add some text or point
to another document, or if we want to tell David that he's on the
rough side of the consensus.
Feedback, please?
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf