Fernando, may I suggest you keep ranting to a minimum.
>>>> That aside, this document aims to update RFC 2460. Where else should >>>> that be done, if not in 6man?? >>> >>> That's a technicality. What's more important is that the relevant expertise >>> is in 6man. >> >> when this document was presented in 6man at IETF84, there were suggestions >> that a more generic >> document could be written. e.g. in intarea. > > We have beaten this one to death -- but you still bring this one up: > Most folks agreed that a general document (in *addition* to this one) > would be useful, but this one would be valuable and *needed*. <chair> that is not evident from this thread, nor the minutes from IETF84. </chair> [...] > In a more broader sense, I wonder what's the point of having a > "maintenance" working group when it looks like you seem to do anything > to avoid formally updating existing standards (this is not the first > instance of that). yes, and I think it is also our responsibility to limit too much tinkering. in this case fixing what appears to be a marginal problem, in descriptive text of RFC2460. [...] > Besides, you'll realize that the document is a bit larger than > one-paragraph long. And there's much more valuable information that > would could put in an errata, or a node requirements update. "It is recommended to use unpredictable values in protocol fields"? the above is good advice, I do not think it necessary to publish a document to update non-normative text in 2460. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
