Hi, all, On 9/24/2014 11:56 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > For the record, Opsec is considering adopting the draft, not v6ops;
I'm including both groups in this response. > Gunter asked v6ops to chime in on the discussion in opsec. The author > has been asking both sets of chairs, and I haven’t seen the > groundswell of support, or even comment, that would lead in the > direction of v6ops adoption. When a doc is "shopped around", that tells me it's not ready for anything. The ADs should determine where a doc belongs and should alert related WGs at that time - and during WGLC. > I personally share your concerns; if we > want to deprecate parts of RFC 2460, I think we need to do that in > 6man. I disagree. This is a significant change to the IPv6 spec; the 6man charter excludes those: --- The 6man working group is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and advancement of the IPv6 protocol specifications and addressing architecture. It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications.... > What v6ops or opsec would be chartered to do is give advice. Agreed. IMO, advice should be limited to explaining cases that fall under MAY or SHOULD in other documents. Anything that overrides a MUST or MUST NOT needs to happen in the WG chartered to update the original doc; AFAICT, that's only INTAREA in this case (if not, it's certainly not *OPS or *MAN). Joe _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
