I agree that Informational is the correct level. I also
don't see anything in the doc that is "new" and needs to
be a Standard.
Regards,
Brian
Thomas Narten wrote:
Yes. Obsoleting 2374 is (from what I can tell) the point of this
document. IMO, putting more into the document than needed to achieve
just this is a distraction.
I really don't find that the text you are objecting to is a distraction.
I think it makes the draft more comprehensible. But it's a judgement
call, so I'd like some other people to comment.
Agreed.
Trying to make this document a Proposed Standard is what makes me
uncomfortable. There is nothing in it that is defining anything new in
a standard's sense (at least, AFAIK). If it were informational, this
issue would just go away.
I guess some are arguing informational is not a strong enough signal,
but I don't personally agree with that. Reclassifying a document as
historic, and obsoleting it seems pretty clear to me.
[side note: the MUST/MAY definitions can now be removed as they are no
longer used.]
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Let me ask a pragmatic question. If this document goes on standards
track, how will this document advance up the Standards Track? What
will the implementation reports contain and actually test? I don't see
immediately anything that is testable. This is one of the reasons I
don't see Standards Track is being the right classification.
Good point (but doesn't it also apply to the address architecture
to a large extent?). BCP is our usual way out of that.
Similar reasoning applies to addr arch. I think that making it a BCP
might in retrospect also have been an alternative approach. But, that
document also has a lot more in it, so it's easier to find stuff in
that is clearly implementation related. But there is also pieces where
the connection is not immediately obvious...
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
