More modification to RIPE-81++

 Jessica Yu <jyy at merit.edu> writes:
  * 
  * I just came back from vacation so I have not had chance to go through
  * all the related messages yet.  From what I understand is that we all agreed
  * to make the <local-rid> field optional and because of changing the ordering
  *  of 
  * <local-rid> field which cause some ambiguity, we want to change the 
  * requirement from 'optional' to 'mandetory'.  This sounds really odd.  Can  
  * we do something to still keep it 'optional'?
  *
Why ??? - See Jimi's message. He had assumed they were always
mandatory.
 
  * Also, this (optional vs mandetory) seems to be a pretty big change.  Since 
  * two
  * of the co-authors were (and one is still ) on vacation, would you please wa
  * it 
  * for them to come back before making the 81++ final?  Elise will be back on 
  * 8/31.
  *
This is not final. Read the top, it STILL says DRAFT. Final decision will
be made at the RIPE meeting. But I do not see any good argument for it
being optional. The point is we want it so you SHOULD know both ends.
As to your comment about waiting for co-authors this is fine in
principe. However, if we waited for every co-author to not be on
vacation  before doing anything we would not get anywhere with this. I
stress again that this process has gone over by several months from
our (yes - the co-authors) agreed timescales so please bear this in mind.

Please give convincing agruments as to why you want it optional and
not do this to try to change the ordering. This has been settled in
the decided way.


			--Tony.





-------- Logged at  Fri Aug 26 16:11:00 MET DST 1994  ---------