I would support Applicability Statement status as that would give us more room to make some recommendations on specifications outside of the core set of IPv6 standards. If you look at what Tim is asking for MLDv2, others are asking for SeND/CGA, etc. - I think it makes a lot of sense ot have a document that can give more guidence than just informational.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Brian E Carpenter Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:29 PM To: Thomas Narten Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Node requirements: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-03.txt > - proper status of this document (info vs. BCP) and whether this > document can update any existing RFC There's a standards-track beast defined in section 3.2 of RFC2026 as an "Applicability Statement": " An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what circumstances, one or more TSs [technical specifications] may be applied to support a particular Internet capability. ... An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective..." I think we can choose, if we want, to make the present document an "Applicability Statement" Proposed Standard or BCP that describes the functionality of a full-spec IPv6 node, and therefore elevates MAY to SHOULD or MUST if we want to. Personally, I think that's a good idea, rather than issuing an informational document that leaves wiggle room on basics such as ND. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
