Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions (per user keying)

[bound@zk3.dec.com]

Ran,

I agree its editorial.  But all words in a standard are important.
I realize this is proposed and I am being to nit picky so I will lighten
up on that in the future.

My special case statement was not for Jeffs change, but rather adding
words or text to drafts that were due March 24th for the WG members to
review.  

The bottom line is this.  The way I read the IETF Mar 24th deadline (for
all WGs) is that I as WG member read and prepare for the meeting with
the drafts that made the deadline I have done my job to prepare.  New
material should be done at Danvers not on the mail list Friday before an
IETF meeing.

So my "no special cases" did not apply to the editorial change but
rather adding to our already full security basket of work in the 11th
hour.

Is this clear now.. sorry if it came across to just your work which was
submitted on time I might add and I appreciate too.

Because Jeff is out of town is too bad thats the way it goes.  Its not
my problem as a WG member and that also means no special cases evern for
IESG or Area Directors.  They are not bosses just leaders.

/jim

---

• Prev by Date: Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions (per user keying)
• Next by Date: Re: Some timings
• Next by thread: Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread