> > >>Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an IPv6 wg > > >>item (see below)? > > > > > >what does it mean to do this? > > As with all working group documents, it means that the resulting text will > be something the working group has reached concensus on as worth > publication. It does not mean that the existing text will be published as an > RFC under the IPv6 WG name, but that it moves from being personal drafts > where some might not be paying attention, to a draft-ipv6 name.
in that case, I don't think we should accept this as a WG document - at least, not at this time. I do accept it as valuable input, though not all input to a WG should be published as an RFC. Sometimes we publish valuable input for the historical record, and that's a good thing to do as long as it's properly labelled. The time to decide on publication for that reason should be after the group has reached consensus on technical mechanisms. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
