> There's clearly a problem (20 unused bits and enormous confusion > about how they could be used). And clearly the goal is 3697bis. The > reason for this draft, as I believe we've discussed over some > months, is to set the scene for 3697bis. Indeed we have two choices:
> 1) agree on the substance of the intended updates and publish them as a > stake in the ground, then develop 3697bis. > 2) agree on the substance of the intended updates (by means of the > present WGLC), and then proceed directly to develop 3697bis. I would find it helpful to see the proposed changes to 3697bis. If I don't see them, I can't tell for sure whether I agree with the justification for making changes. Also, if we want the justification to be correct, it needs to be in sync with the actual changes. If we publish the proposed changes first, and then make changes, we risk the two not being in sync (when people start discussing the actual changes and realize what is really at issue). Or we risk never actually getting agreement on the changes, and then flow-update ends up being the "end of the road". If we already know what changes will be made, please put them on the table and let's decide and move on. How big of a document are we talking about for the actual changes? > I would be too, if it was the end of the road, but we have an author > team all set to start on 3697bis once we have a clear consensus in > the WG about the changes to be made. What are those proposed changes? And can we guage consensus now, before publishing the documents? I don't like this idea that we say there is agreement on the proposed changes, but we don't actually know what they are. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
