more to the point, the WG should change documents if they need to be
changed, not if they feel someone else will worry that they need to
be changed. The WG should send the *right* docs to the IESG, and
presumably this is the set that it now has.
On Aug 3, 2005, at 3:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As the IPv6 working group draws to a close the *only* proper
action is to
recommend to the IESG that all stable and eligible documents be
progressed
along the standards track. The IESG will do whatever it would
anyway, so it
does no good to try to fineness things by endless debates about
last minute
tweaks and the resulting potential to recycle in place. If there
are minor
clarifications to make, those should be done as independent
documents in the
context of addenda to the stable documents. IPv6 as the components
which
functionally replace RFC 791, 826, etc. is complete. Solving
problems that
are still unsolved in IPv4 remains as work for continuing or
future working
groups. That does not diminish the stability of the base
documents, so they
need to progress now.
For what it's worth, I think Tony makes an excellent point. I
think that
we've done good work in the IPv6 on developing & progressing these
documents,
and we should not try to second guess what the IESG will or will
not say.
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
