Hi Thomas, Thanks for your comments. Speaking as an individual (not document author) this is what I think is the right way forward, but I wanted to make sure that this would be useful for the WG.
John >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 05 December, 2007 06:33 >To: Loughney John (Nokia-NRC/PaloAlto) >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; Hinden Bob >(Nokia-ES/MtView) >Subject: Re: Node Requirements in Vancouver RE: Vancouver 6MAN >Agenda updated > >> 1) Quite a few RFCs have been updated since the IPv6 Node >Requirements >> document >> was published. Is there interest in updating the IPv6 Node >> Requirements doc? > >Yes. The published RFC was already "old" by the time it gotten >published because it had been on hold for reference >dependencies for so long.... > >The USG (via NIST and DoD) have IPv6 profiles that are heavily >based on the Node Requirements RFC. I think there are places >where we should clarify existing language, based on the >experience people have had in using RFC 4294. > >> 2) If there is interest, what should be update look like: >> a) Simple update, covering just the updates in the base RFCs. > >Let's keep things small and focused, please. Just update the >Node Requirements RFC. Note: we can always update it again later! > >To be useful, the published RFC needs to be up-to-date. I'd >aim for getting the revisions done by summer of next year >(i.e., around summer meeting time). > >Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
