Thomas, Section 4 of the draft is explicitly the proposed normative changes; no more and no less, starting at
" A description of the changes follows. They are written in normative language to avoid ambiguity. They are mainly not written as specific text changes to RFC 3697, and significant rewriting of the latter is needed to incorporate these changes." Expressing them as diffs to 3697 would produce an unreadable mess. I imagine that the resulting 3697bis would be about the same length as 3697. Regards Brian On 2011-01-18 10:19, Thomas Narten wrote: >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
