RE: WG Last Call on SUA Implementors Guide completes

Brian,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: dinsdag 12 december 2006 12:42
> To: Coene, Lode
> Cc: Ong, Lyndon; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] WG Last Call on SUA Implementors Guide 
> completes
> 
> Lode,
> 
> Aside from the other problems with the document, were you intending on
> ever completing section 2.7?  Or did we want this incomplete section
> going into an RFC?  Did anyone read and reread this section?

What problems.. Your problems maybe, not mine...
Yes... That is what is intended...

> 
> > >" 2.7.2  Text changes to the document
> > >" 
> > >"    ---------
> > >"    Old text: (Section x.x)
> > >"    ---------
> > >" 
> > >" 
> > >"    ---------
> > >"    New text: (Section x.x)
> > >"    ---------
> 
> As to my process question: there would have been little point 
> in giving
> the document a careful review if the intention was to edit an 
> rfc3868bis
> document.  Sections such as Section 2.7 would either disappear or be
> edited into the "bis" document correctly.  That is why I asked the
> question a month ago.
> 
> As the intention is to have this document stand as an RFC on its own,
> the document should be properly completed and receive a 
> complete review.

It seems it has... No comment came forward... 
Just yours after the deadline putting stuff that has been debated ad
infinitum ...
The moment for running circles is past....
If this continues, the document will be ready in the year that Owls
start preaching... 

> 
> Lyndon, would it be possible to extend the WGLC period by 
> several weeks
> to allow time to detail the issues with the document considering that
> the intention to publish the document as an RFC on its own 
> was only just
> announced?

I see no need to extent the WGLC period at all.
All the issues have been debated to dead already.. And the document
reflects the consensus...
  
The intentions had always been to publish this document as a
"standalone" document.
That is not something that was just recently announced...
  
> 
> --brian


Yours sincerely,
Lode Coene  

> 
> Coene, Lode wrote:                            (Tue, 12 Dec 
> 2006 12:15:35)
> > This document is in its 5th iteration. 
> > It has some changes on some of the points you mentioned(and 
> probably not
> > to your liking)  
> > That means that it has been read and reread... I think that 
> this means
> > that it has been reviewed...
> > 
> > This document is ready for AD review...
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>