Leif Johansson wrote:I don't believe that it is possible to turn the current draft into a requirements
I'd also like an answer to this question.
As with all working group documents, it means that the resulting text will be something the working group has reached concensus on as worth
document which does not assume the outcome. Given your reply to my question
I oppose the publication of this draft as a wg document.
publication. It does not mean that the existing text will be published as anImo, you are wrong about the merit of wg status. There are several examples
RFC under the IPv6 WG name, but that it moves from being personal drafts
where some might not be paying attention, to a draft-ipv6 name.
in the IETF of good work beeing done as individual submission drafts. Its not
the filename, its what you write that matters.
Cheers Leif
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
