Re: [Asrg] Filtering Header Draft Discussion

Laird Breyer wrote:
> Sorry I'm late to the discussion. I don't care what the name of the
> header is, but it's probably best if whoever cleans up the document
> next makes an executive decision for now. It's easy to global replace
> later if necessary. If "Processed" is taken, we could go with
> "Filtered".

When I commit the next version, Filtered will appear in every relevant place, and I will
include a footnote about it.

>>>[snip]
>>>As far as everything else I'll comment on it when I had time to fully
>>>read the draft, but I think there would be quite a few comments ...
>>
>>Thank you. Since it's too late to prepare this for I-D submission for IETF 61, there is a 
>>fair amount of time to work on it. I figure it'll probably go into the real I-D queue as 
>>soon as it reopens, as I'm looking for more outside attention.
> 
> There hasn't been too much activity on the list recently, which is
> really the root problem. Unless the draft is discussed and heavily
> criticised by people who will be affected, it won't progress to
> something truly useful.
> 
> Can you or David do a quick editing cut of the current draft into
> something that is readable for the list? I added a bunch of text but
> never got around to cleaning up the text as a whole, and there's a bit
> of duplication still. I'm willing to do a quick edit myself if you
> both prefer. The important thing is to be readable, not necessarily
> complete, so that it fosters discussion on the list. Be ruthless.

I actually have a major revision in progress, which includes a whole lot of change. Give
me about a day.

> I'll also post a general message to the ietf-822 list to see what
> people there think and possible caveats. We really need third party input.

Thanks.

Phil