Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825

[Richard Barnes <rbarnes at bbn.com>]

Keith,

What Hannes said is correct: The question is whether the document in 
question should be used as a starting point for the WG document.  The 
issue of scope is independent of this question (but related, since one 
would like the starting point to be close to the goal), since the 
document will be revised to meet the needs of the WG.

--Richard



DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> I have some major problems with this question, and therefore the answer has to be no.
>
> The underlying basis for any revision has to be RFC3825. I am not in favour of a carte blanche replacement of RFC 3825. In the absence of consensus, current 3825 requirements prevail.
>
> What we should be attempting to do is fix the problems in RFC 3825. So I would prefer questions asked on: Do we agree on the fix of a specific issues.
>
> Keith
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org 
> > [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:43 AM
> > To: 'GEOPRIV'
> > Subject: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Based on the prior thread about the scope of 3825 fixes, it 
> > sounds like the closest of the three proposed documents to 
> > what people want is draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03.  So I 
> > would like to put the following question to the group:
> >
> > Should the WG document for revisions to RFC 3825 be based on 
> > draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03?
> >
> > Please respond to the list by Monday, 27 April 2009.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Richard
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv