On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
Oh, must have misread -- thanks. > -----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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
