On the Sec 3.2 point, I think Olaf is getting somewhere in his reply: make
this the definitive source, which should eliminate the issue of duplication
and also merge in the 6410 stuff. I'll work up text on the plane (en route
to EWR now.
Barry
On Friday, November 1, 2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
I largely agree with what Barry is saying. Additional review is always
helpful, but I'm pessimistic about getting relevant additional review. And
I'm mostly thinking of the kind of people where this work started from;
folk who would have a problem using RFCs as reference standards in, say,
government procurement, but would happily go on using their computers with
all kinds of Internet technology in them after speaking :-) I think the
crux of the matter is to get our own house in order and be consistent
between reality and our description of the IETF process. And this is what
we're doing.
FWIW, my personal opinions on content:
I am happy with the 3.2 as it stands, but also happy with Barry's
suggested "by-reference" formulation.
I agree with Barry's description of why Section 4 is necessary.
Jari