Hi, Pekka et co.!
Actually, the current charter says:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html
"APR 03 Submit IPv6 Node Requirements to IESG for Informational."
I also think that Info (or BCP) is the correct category.
Cheers,
-Juha-
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 March, 2003 01:28
To: Tim Hartrick
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
