Pekka - I would agree if the text in question were a key component of the protocol specification. But, because this text is background material and the discussion has been conducted on the WG mailing list, I don't think a last call is warranted for this text.
Of course, there may be other changes to the doc that would more strongly suggest a WG last call... - Ralph On 8/31/06 9:18 AM, "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > autolearn=ham version=3.1.4 > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on otso.netcore.fi > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Ralph Droms wrote: >> Suresh - I think Jinmei-san and I have come to agreement on replacement text >> in section 2.4 (see below). > > As a WG participant, if we want to go ahead with the change, I'd > expect WG chairs to issue a last call of some sort for the changes > (giving a good motivation for the change), given that the document has > already left the WG quite a while ago. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
