I strongly object against the standard track status for this document
because this will close the door:
- research won't be done in order to find alternate/better solution
- implementors will have to implement exactly the mechasnims described
in the document or they won't be conformant.
The first point is a known drawback for standards. My concern is more
the second point, I understand we have to restraint freedom for getting
more interoperability but in this case we are going too far!
Some choices are still arguable, in particular in defaults, and these
will become standards so even we believe they are not good we will be
stuck with them.
These concerns have already slowed down the document and can become
critical when it will go further in the standard track. Common sense
rules ("MUSTs") should be in a different document than some detailed
mechanisms ("SHOULD/MAYs").
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
