[rfc-i] Which document are we supposed to be commenting on?
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sat Nov 13 02:32:05 PST 2010
At 1:20 PM -0400 11/1/10, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> A clarifying question.
> thanks very much for bringing up this very important issue. Perfect timing.
>> I have read the draft and will read the overview when it is out. Should I assume the overview is authoritative? That is, if the draft and overview say different things about an issue, then is the overview correct? Or are they supposed to be saying the same thing?
>Yes - they are supposed to be saying the same thing, in the first version of the Overview.
To echo something that has been said in the hallways all week this week: that didn't happen. There are places where the Overview admits to being different than the draft, and there are significant wording changes that could either be intentional corrections or unintentional mistakes.
> > Likewise, if there is something in the draft that is not in the overview, then I assume the text in the draft is authoritative.
Given that the overview had some explicit changes to the draft, and that the slides for the presentation on Monday (<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/plenaryt-12.pdf>) has significant changes from the draft, it is completely unclear which document we are supposed to be commenting on. Or, are we supposed to wait for the next draft and/or overview? Guidance here would help the discussion of specifics that you requested.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest