Re: (M2PA) M2PA Implementor's Guide Kickoff

Jeffrey,

I prefer the usual delta format.

There are no defects in the document that I know of.  (I would
not have passed the RFC by 48 hours if I knew of any.)

I think all of these "clarifications" (except one for PO) are
unnecessary.  Most of these were not mentioned even in passing
on the mailing list.  The I-G should try to represent consensus,
addressing issues raised on the mailing list or from interop
tests, and should not be the editor's personal pet peeve list
for the specification.

Timer values should be addressed in an AS, not in the PS.

See draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test for specific examples of
procedures if you think the RFC lacks examples.

--brian

Craig, Jeffrey wrote:                          (Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:03:10)
> 
>    Hello All,
> 
>    As Lyndon Ong stated in a prior post, I've agreed to lead the effort
>    in creating an M2PA Implementor's Guide. I am busy working on it,
>    but I have not yet submitted a draft. When I do submit it, it will
>    have the lovely name 'draft-ietf-sigtran-m2pa-ig-00.txt'.
> 
>    In the meantime, I would like to kick-off discussion and solicit ideas
>    for the following:
> 
>    * preference for IG content (delta document vs. replacement document)
>    * specific defects and remedies
>    * clarifications
> 
>    At the bottom of this post is a memo I drafted describing my proposals
>    for the IG, as well as the preliminary list of 'defects'. Comments
>    and questions are welcome.
> 
>    Regards,
> 
>    Jeff


-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/