On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you and with James, so I will reject this issue - no
changes needed.
This is meant to be an Informational document, at least if the draft
header is correct. It does not provide any normative information what
must or must not be implemented. I view it more as a roadmap to a
subset of IPv6-related RFCs.
As such I don't see a procedural problem in including RFC5006, if
there is a case to be made that it is useful in some environment or
should otherwise be in this document.
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 November, 2008 18:06
To: Loughney John (Nokia-D/MtView)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Node Requirement: New issue 5: Support for RFC 5006
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recieved a question:
What about RFC5006 "Router Advertisement Option for DNS
Configuration", or is it problem that it is of experimental category?
My feeling is that this is experimental, so it cannot really be a
requirement.
What does the working group think?
Given that this is an Experimental spec, I would contend that
we cannot include it as a requirement for nodes. I think this
holds for any Experimental specification.
Regards,
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
