Margaret,
It is up to the WG Chairs, Bob and Brian, to put together an implementation report. In this particular case, this may only involve pointing at the old implementation report and explaining why the changes in this document do not warrant gathering further implementation data. I will work with Bob and Brian on this.
Brian and I discussed this earlier today. We conclude that since this document is being recycled at Draft Standard and we are not making any incompatible changes, we don't think that new implementation reports are required. The current report is at:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/nd-auto-implementations.txt
We also encourage people who have implementations who are not listed, to submit one. They can use the existing reports as a template.
As I answered at this list, 2461bis and 2462bis should be updated at the same timing, so we'll eventually need to wait for 2461bis to be approved. If we reach the point, please just keep 2461bis sleeping for now.
Brian and Bob, what is the status on 2461bis? Are we expecting it to be submitted for publication soon?
Yes, we expect to submit it soon. While the two document are dependent on each other, we think it would be OK for the IESG to consider them sequentially. The reference dependances can be resolved in the RFC editor queue. To say it another way, we don't think there will be any changes to 2461bis that would require 2462bis to change.
Thanks, Bob & Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
