>>>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:41:35 +0300 (EEST),
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My initial thought is also that we should not make RFC 2461bis (or
> 2462bis) include every extension specified since 1998. Those can stay
> very well in separate drafts. Of course, we should still consider whether
> we want to enable the base spec to give more flexibility (e.g., the
> solicitation timers etc.) for those extensions. There is a clear
> distinction between these two, IMHO.
> Another thought: if we recycle RFC2461bis to DS, I think we should re-do
> the implementation reports if we changed the code (not sure whether new
> reports is _required_..). This may not be a bad thing, as the current
> implementation reports should (IMHO) be a bit more detailed than that..
(I'm writing this since I don't think I've seen a message replying to
this part. But if I miss it, please just ignore this one.)
Yes, we're planning to call for implementation reports when
rfc246[01]bis are ready to be recycled to DS.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
