> > (1) I think that this document should explicitly state, in the > > introduction, that it is not a standard and is not intended to > > modify or contradict any IPv6 standard documents. I thought that > > we had agreed to something like this earlier.
> Yes, we had agreed this and we even had the note... until we were told > that we shouldn't re-state the type of the document in the text. Since, I'm apparently the one who "told" you this, let me clarify. What I thought I requested was taking out all references to a particular RFC being a "standard" (vs. informational or something else). Just referring to the RFCs as RFCs is preferred. As a general rule, an RFC shouldn't be stating what the status of another RFC is, since this can change over time. My comments should not be interpreted as precluding making the changes Margaret is requesting. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
