My "vote" would be no change. But, I'd be OK if Ralph wanted to state it
is TBD and outside the scope of this document and perhaps indicate that
it is an issue whether the RG gets options to pass on from either the
container option or from those supplied to the RG.
- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Brim [mailto:swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:52 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernie Volz (volz); dhc WG;
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Black_David(_at_)emc(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mif
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00
Excerpts from Ted Lemon on Tue, Apr 14, 2009 02:48:06PM -0700:
I don't mean to minimize this issue - if in fact there is some
future real-world scenario where this would be a serious problem,
it would be good if we could anticipate it.
I'm just saying the WG should make an explicit decision one way or
another:
- decide the draft needs no change
- document source info as TBD and outside of the container syntax
or
- document source info as part of container syntax
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf