Ron Bonica wrote: >> The problem is that anything short of having this be standards-track >> means that future standards-track docs _need_ not consider this work at >> all. If that's not the goal, than this needs to go a different track. >> > > Jari, > > Is there some requirement for PS that this document does not meet? > > Ron
IMO, PS would require a much more complete description of the specific changes to RFCs 792 and 1122. I'm not sure there's a motivation for this to go PS either - extending ICMP in general isn't sufficient. Changes to these core docs that aren't absolutely necessary to support immediate critical needs of _Internet_ protocols are also insufficient. Right now, the primary motivation is to support MPLS use of ICMP. That doesn't warrant an upheaval of Internet specs. The other motiviations (Alia's doc) seem at best experimental at this point. I'd suggest this go experimental until there is further standards-track need to support Internet protocols. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
