On 4/11/16, 12:30 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
Hi! >On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:54:06PM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >wrote: >> Dan, >> >> Many thanks for this review! >> >> You raise two good questions, here¹s my take: >> I do not have a strong opinion one way or another ‹ I will leave this >>one to the AD¹s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as >>updating RFC 5881 if that¹s the preferred direction. >> Indeed ‹ fixed in our working copy. > >I'm of mixed opinion to mark it as updating. The bulk of the >functionality >is separate procedures from RFC 5881. The only thing that is updated is >the >echo port, which 5881 leaves very much out of scope for what is carried on >that port. > >I agree that it's worth leaving the final call to Álvaro. I don't think this document needs to be marked as updating 5881 because it doesn't change the procedures from that RFC, it enhances/extends with optional functionality (I.e. What is specified here is not needed for 5881 implementations to interoperate). Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
