Re: multi6 WG Last Calls closed

I think we are close enough to agreement to ask the authors of
all three last call documents to revise them ASAP for a final
check by the WG. That is:

  draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt
  draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt
  draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt

Erik is also revising
  draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-01.txt
in response to IESG comments.

    Brian

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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.
>