>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:45:09 -0600 (CST),
>>>>> Lilian Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Is this draft going to RFC status anytime soon? A lot of the basic
> behavior has changed between versions 02 and 03.
Most of them are clarifications on obscure stuff in the former drafts
and results of solving open issues. I believe the current spec is
still quite compatible with the former behavior in practical point of
view.
I admit, however, that some of the changes are controversial and that
some of them surely break the backward compatibility. I'd like to
discuss the issues in the ML and (if we have time) in Salt Lake City.
> Would you say that version 03 is a fairly stabilized draft?
I'm not sure how I can answer the question, but at least I don't think
this can be the last version to the RFC status due to the
controversial points above. But, the basic concept in this revision
is:
- clarify all obscure points in the former spec
- remove all definitions and descriptions related to on-going stuff
(since they can delay the fix of this API)
- no new stuff is not included (nor will be in the future versions)
- fix/change the behaviors which were known to be suitable to the
other standard specs and implementation experiences (this part
should be the most controversial point, and thus I tried to keep
the effect of the changes as small as possible)
My plan is to concentrate on the controversial stuff, to reach
consensus, and to fix the API, in the next revision of the draft.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
