>Also... related to this... I noticed that you mentioned NEMO and Shim6 >WGs in the drafts. In general, I don't think RFCs should be mentioning >names of working groups, because the RFC becomes outdated when the WG >ceases. However, I understand that, in this case, it is very hard to >avoid mentioning NEMO and Shim6. But still I would like to mention in >case you can think of an appropriate solution that wouldn't make the RFC >outdated in a few years.
Nothing to do with this present draft, but something to consider when it comes to the RFC editor for all RFCs ?: I think it's a pity WG names are not specificied in the title page of RFCs. This may be fine for IETFers, but many people outside the IETF can't make the link between a draft they had in their hands, and the RFC. Some people may be very much aware of a WG name, but not with the exact titles of the document produced by this group. But there is no possibility to search through the RFC by specifying a WG name. Regards, Thierry _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
