It is only for BCP. Not PS. I just found that out this week per my last mail. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 6:28 PM > To: Tim Hartrick > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Mobility in Nodes Requirements > > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
