Hi Tony,
Your new draft (26 February):
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01
does not include any of the changes and additions I suggested on 24
February:
Ivip map-encap & MHF in draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-00
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04535.html
You expanded the first two taxonomies:
3.1 A Mechanism Taxonomy
3.2 A Functional Taxonomy
but changed only a few words in the third:
3.3 The Herrin Taxonomy
as can be seen from the Diff1 link from the current version.
You added a note about the taxonomies that "Section 3.3 is the
most useful so far and is where we will continue to focus our efforts."
I had suggested that if you do not expect a taxonomy to be complete
that you either delete it or indicate clearly that each such taxonomy
is incomplete.
On 17 February (message 4520) I had suggested an addition to the 3.1
taxonomy to make it more complete.
You wrote here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04533.html
The taxonomy in 3.1 is inadequate and not particularly helpful
and not really worth further refinement.
yet in version 01 you refined and extended 3.1 somewhat, without
including my suggested addition.
Your initial response to my suggested changes to 3.3, and my reply:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04546.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04547.html
So far, my efforts to improve the draft have had little or no effect
- and after reading your message 4546 I am unclear on what reasons
you might have for not accepting my suggestions or for not discussing
them in meaningful detail.
Maybe you plan to include or discuss these suggestions in detail -
but have not yet had time to do so.
I have made a page to track what I think is currently missing from
the draft of our forthcoming recommendations:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/rec/
- Robin
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.