On 10/13/2014 1:47 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joe Touch wrote: >> On 10/13/2014 12:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> ... >>> Exactly. I believe this draft, and the options draft, are *exactly* what >>> the IETF should do (and why we have an E in our name instead of an S; >>> we are not the Internet Standards Task Force). If our standards are >>> unrealistic, we should be the ones to do something about it... >> >> If it's that our standards are unrealistic, it would be useful to >> address this as changes to the standards. > > That's what RFC 7045 does; it has "Updates: 2460, 2780" on its front > page. Similarly, draft-gont-6man-ipv6-opt-transmit (the options > draft referred to above) has "Updates: 2460 (if approved)" in its > front page.
Right, but it's not what either this doc (draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering) or draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world does. I've raised this issue before. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
