Subject: [EAI] Status of draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-02.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:10:20 +0100

IESG has reviewed this document last Thursday. There is only one DISCUSS 
blocking publication of this document:

=============
Pasi Eronen:
Discuss:
[2009-10-06] I have reviewed draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-02, and 
have couple
of questions/concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending
approval of the document:

- I found the algorithm in Section 4 extremely difficult to
understand.  For example, in Step 2 one could assume the generated
header fields are added to the "edit space" -- but the example later
suggests that's probably not the case. And it's very unclear why Step
6 applies also to "Address Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields",
or what it does for them (I thought those are already processed by
steps 1...5). I'd suggest some rewriting here to add clarity.

- Section 5 says hiding the information from the actual header fields
isn't a problem if the comparison done in step 4 succeeds. But this
step applies only to address header fields, right? What about
non-address header fields?
=============

The document needs to be updated to clarify these issues.

Thanks,
Alexey

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:11:13 -0400

After looking at Pasi's DISCUSS comment on this, I re-read sections 3
and 4, and I think they're both quite  difficult, and not ready for
publication.  I can't understand the point of section 3 at all, in
fact -- it seems to tell me about something I might do, and then tells
me not to do it.  If someone will try explaining the real point, here,
I'll take a stab at re-writing it.

I'm in the process of re-writing section 4, and I'll post the result
here when I'm done, for the WG to review and see if it works.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:10:13 -0400

> here when I'm done, for the WG to review and see if it works.

I've gotten stuck on the re-write of section 4, as well -- I can't
figure out what I'm supposed to do after step 4, and step 6, in
particular, doesn't make sense to me.

I presume that, since the working group sent this up to the IESG, some
others in the WG understand the process.  Will someone who does please
get in touch with me so we can work on re-wording?  I'm happy to do
the writing, but I need consultation on the procedure that's being
defined.

Barry

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:20:58 -0700

Hi Barry,
>particular, doesn't make sense to me.

I exchanged some emails with Fujiwara as I commented on that 
section.  I'll try and find some time over the weekend to go over 
them.  I got the procedure wrong at first when I tried to do a 
re-write and Fujiwara helped me out.

Regards,
-sm