>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:19:56 -0500,
>>>>> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This Last Call ended yesterday with no comments. At a minimum,
> I would like to hear from those people who commented previously
> whether or not this version satisfies their concerns.
I think I should have responded during the LC period...sorry for my
poor response. I've checked the latest version, and I basically have
no objection to submitting this document.
I have one additional question specific to the latest version. This
one has a new requirement on SEND in section 3.1:
* Nodes implementing Optimistic DAD SHOULD additionally implement
Secure Neighbor Discovery [SEND].
I don't recall why this was added, but if this is based on a
consensus, I don't oppose to the requirement itself. However, I
believe if we use this wording with the SHOULD, the reference to SEND
must be a normative reference (even though the word "additionally"
might weaken the requirement level). Upgrading the reference won't
become a procedural problem, since the SEND spec is already in the RFC
editor queue and both documents will become a PS.
In any event, this is not a strong opinion. If others think it's okay
to keep it as an informative reference, I can live with that. Also,
even if we agree on changing the reference category, I think we can do
that later with IESG comments.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
