[manet] Re: Problems and Gaps (was: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Extended: Call for adoption: draft-templin-manet -inet-05)

I appreciate the input, AB – thank you.

Fred

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2026 12:41 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
Cc: Lou Berger <[email protected]>; [email protected]; manet <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [manet] Problems and Gaps (was: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Extended: Call for adoption: draft-templin-manet-inet-05)

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your work, sorry that I still did not get time to respond much on the list, but will try in the close future, my comment below

On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 5:53 PM Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Lou, I suspect if you asked 20 random IETFers what is meant by “problem” and what is meant by “gap” you would get 20 different answers. Still, those terms turn up in published RFCs all the time – for example, RFC9365 talks about “problems” and RFC7429 talks about “gaps” and the editors of those documents got to apply their own interpretations of what is meant by the terms.


I agree with you, but I think that the problem statement should only mention the problems, however, I will leave it to the authors and at last call discussions. However, I think we need to complete the technical solution issues before talking into texts or use of words, so I suggest let problem statement as it is, and work on the solution draft.

best regards
AB

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]