Hi, Ron,
On 2/24/2015 9:39 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
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).
Sure.
So, I guess we have no choice other than to discuss what should be.
I disagree. It's OK to have a PS focus on the currently deployed
protocol, even if it updates another PS.
Please make your case that what we have in
draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 is not what should be.
I don't want to open that can of worms, and past experience with this WG
is that they don't either.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
