Hello everybody,
I didn't get to the mic today as most of the things that I wanted to
say were said. However, I would like to agree with Thomas. I think we
should have a fairly timely update on the draft and get it basically
up to date. We can in the future (if we have energy for it) rewrite
it more substantially.
Cheers,
Jonne.
On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:33 PM, ext Thomas Narten wrote:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
