>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:54:24 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> Tim Hartrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 1. remove extension header issues from the current draft.
>> 2. solve (a part of) open issues except extension header ones.
>> 3. based on the result of 2, issue a revised version of the rfc2292bis
>> draft. The draft name would be either
>> draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt
>> or
>> draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2292bis-00.txt
>> 4. solve extension header issues, and issue a new draft entitled
>> (e.g.) draft-ietf-ipv6-exthdr-api-00.txt
>>
> Hmm.. I would say I do object for this reason. If I remember the issues
> related to MIPv6 binding updates and the like and I remember the discussions
> that occurred on this list regarding them I wasn't under the impression
> that we were substantially far from being able to solve some of the in-
> flexibility issues. I wouldn't want to see us rip all that content out of
> the spec unless we are pretty sure that consensus can't be reached.
> What scares me about splitting this content off is that it opens up an
> opportunity for complete redesign of the entire mechanism if it is not
> tightly controlled. We don't have a history of that kind of discipline
> in these areas and I am concerned that we will get a complete redesign,
> and pile and piles of obsoleted code, when only tweaks are required.
I do understand the concern...but, then, do you have a concrete idea
to realize the flexibility?
> What I would prefer is that we take the discussion to the apifolks mailing
> list, where we have a good focused group, so that we can actually get the
> work done. We aren't that far away. It just requires cycles to be applied.
As for the place to discuss the issue, I don't mind to go to the
apifolks list. A possible problem of the list, though, is that it is
not so widely common, and some people who are interested in the topic
and are writing code may not able to join the discussion (actually,
I've already got several e-mail messages about what the list was or howb
an interested person could subscribe to the list). So, unless there
is a strong objection to being stay here, I think we should still
discuss the issue in the list.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
