Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised

Hi David, 
Yes, you are correct, this should be pushed forward.  I think the only
remaining issue is whether the FLUTE version number should be incremented
due to backwards compatibility issues, or some argumentation saying that a
version increment is not necessary because the backwards compatibility
issues are not there or not significant enough to justify.  Is there any
consensus on this final issue at this time?  Anybody want to provide
argumentation that we can justifiably keep this as version 1 (same as the
deprecated RFC3926), or should we just go along with the IESG request to
make this Version 2?   We need to push this forward and complete the work.
Mike




On 9/13/10 3:53 PM, "David Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Where are we with this document?
> I asked for an updated version number back in July.
> I'm not seeing much discussion on the ML.
> When can I expect a new revision that addresses the backwards
> compatibility issue?
> 
> David Harrington
> Director, IETF Transport Area
> [email protected] (preferred for ietf)
> [email protected]
> +1 603 828 1401 (cell)
>