[rfc-i] Which document are we supposed to be commenting on?
glenn at RiverOnce.com
Sat Nov 13 16:38:30 PST 2010
On Nov 13, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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, your question seems to interleave two questions, which I'll try to faithfully unwind here:
The Overview - the most current description - is the commanding document. Where the draft and the Overview don't agree, please rely on the Overview.
However, if anyone finds points of interest in the draft (or anywhere else, for that matter) that don't seem covered by the Overview, then please bring those to the list for discussion. And of course any items that are covered by the overview or draft, but with which someone disagrees or wants clarification, should be brought to the list as well.
On another front, there has been a lot of good discussion on this list, which I'm watching very closely. I see my role as largely as one of supporting the discussion as appropriate and responding to direct requests. Besides being the right approach, this allows me to focus on producing the next draft, which comes out on the 22nd.s
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest