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

Hi,

The IESG has reviewed the changes made, found them to be not
backwards-compatible, and reached consensus that a new version is
called for.

I would like to see the WG make progress on this draft soon.

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[email protected] (preferred for ietf)
[email protected]
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luby, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 8:09 AM
> To: David Harrington; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: 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)
> > 
>