Hi Hesham & Tony, > So to re-iterate, the draft _already_ includes > the information required for IPv6 over foo, > but it also adds the minimal requirements. > > Splitting it into 10 documents is not what I'm > concerned about. I want to make sure that > each one of those 10 includes the right information.
Our draft by no means precludes a General IPv6 Host/Node Requirements draft, nor does it preclude a more general IP over Foo draft. Actually, the authors have been considering those 2 drafts as well. However, I do not see any conflict between these documents, and I see them as clearly distinct documents. In other words, even if we had an IP over Foo RFC and a Minimum Requirements for an IPv6 Host, there would still be need for an information document like the one we have been writing. The purpose of doing it here in the IPv6 WG is to ensure that the document is compliant to IPv6 and that we have considered the correct features, etc. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
