On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger, > > On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Well, the end of my conversation is at >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html >>> >>> Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find the >>> changes is better." >>> >>> If it wasn't clear, I believe this document is technically done and needs >>> to be advanced, but it does need editorial work as indicated above. >> >> Hmm sorry for being unclear, the technical part looked okay as far as >> I could tell, but as the quoted words from you, it will probably be >> more confusing to have two documents where the last one update/change >> the first one. Would be much better to have just one >> replacing/updating the old one. > > That was my first thought, but then I realised it would cause a lot > of delay, and I think getting these changes deployed is quite urgent.
what about doing it in two step? First getting this one out since it fix something quite broken, and then update the old RFC? -- Roger Jorgensen | [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
