Re: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-05 WGLC comments - Section 4 and editorials (Ben)

I'm not complaining...

On May 15, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> (Quick response on the "4.2, 4.2, and 4.4"  comments--I will follow up on the rest shortly.)
> 
> On May 15, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>>> -- 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4: I'm still afraid that sections 4.2, 4.3 are not going to result in interoperable implementations. The various efforts to decide you can still use CEMA even when the peer does not advertise it remind me of the rules of Fizzbin ( 
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizbin#Fizzbin ). Adding in the need to resolve names to IP addresses for comparison purposes in 4.4, I have to ask if we really think the benefit is worth the complexity? Can it be streamlined somehow?
>> 
>> In the past, we spent lots of time in order to clarify these sections, based on input from e.g. Eric Burger and yourself.  And, there aren't any major changes compared to version -03.
>> 
>> I really don't know how it can be further streamlined, and suggest to keep it as it is.
>> 
> 
> I agree there have no substantial change since the work group pubreq'd this before. Since I'm the only one who is complaining about it at this point, I suspect the _chair_ will agree to let it go as is ;-)
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple