>>>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:18:12 -0400,
>>>>> Soliman Hesham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I have a high-level question first; is the intent to do these updates
>> and recycle the document as a draft standard?
>> Or to try to move it to full standard?
> => My understanding was that the new RFC would still
> be in DS, but I could be wrong. It'd be good if the
> chairs shed some light on this.
>> If recycle at draft is the goal, are there documents (such as MIPv6)
>> which contain extensions to the packet formats which should be folded
>> into the base ND spec at this point in time?
>>
>> In addition to the MIP issues in your list there is (at least) the
>> definition of the R bit in the prefix option, and the advertisement
>> interval option.
> => Right. So I'm not sure if the goal is to include all
> the ND extensions in other specs, again it would be good
> to get some feedback on this point. I assumed that extensions
> would be done anyway in other specs as deemed necessary.
> So, if this assumption is agreeable then the work should be
> limited to clarifying points in the spec or solving problems
> that were discovered by people while working with this
> version of ND.
FWIW, my understanding is the same on both points.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
