Fair enough. Could we progress this document if I committed to producing
another for v6? I do think that they should probably be separate documents.
Ron
Pekka Savola wrote:
> autolearn=ham version=3.1.2
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.2 (2006-05-25) on otso.netcore.fi
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, 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.
>>
>>
>> Is there some requirement for PS that this document does not meet?
>
>
> FWIW, IMHO any PS protocol must support v6 unless there is strong
> justification not to.
>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
