Re: multi6 WG Last Calls closed

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>> In my opinion, the two big open issues are
>>
>>  draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt
>>  Thierry Ernst: "to be honest, I don't
>>    really understand the value of the document."
>>
>>  As I already said, we are chartered to produce this document,
>>  but its value is indeed "for the record". Does the WG think that
>>  is enough to justify publication?
>
> I have no real strong feeling one way or the other. I do think that we
> want this documented somewhere and if not in a separate document
> perhaps this could be fitted into the architectural analysis? But I am
> not sure that is the best place and I think that might add length to an
> already quite long document.

I think the doc we have should be sufficiently useful, and besides, 
we've been requested to do.  I'd say just ship it and if the IESG 
evaluation shows that it's not good enough, let's reconsider.

>>  draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt
>>  Pekka Savola: "The document is rather long and conversational
>>    in tone." (plus specific comments related to this view).
>>
>>  Does the WG agree with Pekka, to the point of asking for a
>>  major revision effort?

To be clear, even though I said "rather long and conversational in 
tone", I was *not* asking the document to be rewritten to _not_ be 
that.

What I was hoping was maybe some more structure and changes in the 
document's organization so that the "conversation" would be more 
manageable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings