>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:10:29 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> One thing we may have to care, however, is that the lack of
>> implementation might be a barrier of recycling the spec as a
>> DS, since
>> we'd need to show interoperable implementations.
> => Good point. It would be good to get some clarification on whether
> this is an issue though.
RFC2026 says in Section 4.1.2 that:
4.1.2 Draft Standard
[...]
The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
specification. In cases in which one or more options or features
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed.
My honest impression from this text is that RFC2462 should have not
advanced to a DS...I don't know (remember) why it was accepted, but I
suspect it was by an accident. Considering the fact that an error can
always occur, I'd respectfully say the following is a bit naive:
> I mean, considering that both RFCs are already DS.
> My understanding was that this is more of an issue for a PS going to DS.
Of course, I may be wrong. Hopefully someone can clarify how RFC2462
could advance to the DS level despite the fact that there were
probably no interoperable implementations regarding the M/O flags.
(Note: I'm particularly speaking about a general procedure, separately
from how we should deal with the M/O flags in rfc2462bis.)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
