> Bob Hinden wrote: > The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the > IESG decision to approve the IPv6 Addressing Architecture > (draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that > the document should not be published as a Draft Standard[1]. > Given that the revised document is a significant improvement > over RFC 2473, and that RFC2473 is badly out of date,
Agree. > we believe it is desirable to go ahead and publish the > document as a Proposed Standard at this time ASAP in order > to get a replacement to RFC2473 out. > In parallel, it would be appropriate to discuss the details > of the IAB response and how the WG wishes to respond to the > IAB recommendations. Note that approving the document as PS > at this time does not imply that the WG agrees with all of > the IAB's recommendations nor does it preclude any particular > follow-on action by the WG or IESG. However, approval at PS > is something that can be done relatively quickly. > Does this approach make sense to the WG? Does to me. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
