Pekka - the discussion has already occurred on the ipv6 WG mailing list and we have consensus on replacement text. I don't see a need to further waste the WG's time with additional discussion in a WG last call now that the interested parties have already come to consensus.
I didn't say the text is irrelevant, I said it was background material. More precisely, the text does not affect the protocol being standardized. However, the text is, in fact, wrong, and should be corrected. - Ralph On 8/31/06 12:34 PM, "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Ralph Droms wrote: >> 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. > > If the text has little relevance, then I don't see why it needs to > change. AFAIR, it was significantly debated, and reopening that > discussion might not be the best use of our time and energy. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
