On 2007-05-19 05:23, George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
At Fri, 18 May 2007 21:01:14 -0400,
Joe Abley wrote:
On 18-May-2007, at 15:27, Dow Street wrote:
On May 18, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
One of my objections is that this draft doesn't explain what it
does or why. This is an integral part of what we're trying to do
here, we can't relegate that part to some third order draft. And
why the rush? Implementers are going to do what they're going to
do regardless of the publication date of the resulting RFC. And
it's not like we didn't know the implications of source routing
before this.
I agree. If this I-D is to deprecate a significant part of such a
key RFC, it should explain why. The current text is exceeding
sparse in this regard, and the relevant refs are mostly non-
archival documents.
So would work on a companion document outlining the problems with
source routing in general and RH0 in particular fill that gap
satisfactorily, in your opinion?
I believe that a separate document is best, because I prefer the
current, shorter, draft we have now.
Ditto. Let's not complicate the normative text with rationale.
Brian
--
NEW: Preferred email for non-IBM matters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
