Joe,
Because RFC 2784 is PS, and this document UPDATES the procedures defined in RFC
2784, we have no choice but to ask for PS. (You can't UPDATE a PS with
INFORMATIONAL).
So, I guess we have no choice other than to discuss what should be.
Please make your case that what we have in draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 is not
what should be.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:24 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
>
>
>
> On 2/24/2015 9:20 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:13 AM
> >> To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; [email protected]
> >> Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> >>
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> The latter. The following is text from the draft:
> >>
> >> " This document specifies GRE procedures for IPv6, used as either the
> >> payload or delivery protocol. It updates RFC 2784 [RFC2784]. Like
> >> RFC 2784, this specification describes GRE how has been implemented
> >> by several vendors."
> >
> > You are asking for Proposed Standards status. That goes beyond
> > documenting just "what is", and specifies once and for all "what will
> > forever
> be".
>
> This document will forever be "what is currently commonly used".
>
> We've been around the block on "let's describe what SHOULD be, but isn't
> deployed". While I agree that's important, that is not the function of this
> document.
>
> Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
