On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Tim Hartrick wrote: > In general, I agree with Jim here. I have never seen the need for an > IPv6 node requirements specification. The need for the IPv4 host requirements > document was in large part driven by the large number of ambiguities and > bugs in the original IPv4 RFCs. [...]
I agree, at least to a degree: I believe the optimal category should be BCP or Informational. PS (as is currently in the charter) is also fine, though I see little which would require this -- and in fact might give a wrong picture of the nature of the memo. But this is a discussion we probably have had many times -- too bad I just remember the outcome and justifications (well, one: IPv4 NodeReqs was PS for reasons given by Tim). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
