That's a question we can guess the answer to; right now, most of our concerns about PS requirements are in anticipation of cross-area and IESG review, at least from my perspective.
I'd guess that an integrated response to extended ICMP messages is more appropriate than separate ones, but it's just a guess. Joe Ron Bonica wrote: > 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. >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
