I definitely think so. I think it's better if the deprecation document, which is a standards action, stays mean and lean so that it can be read in 5 minutes, with the full details of the issues being Informational.
Brian Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > At 08:57 AM 9/23/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > True, but if we wish to remain relevant, something has to be written > > > somewhere. I fully agree that doing so in *this* document may not be > > > worth it; it might be worth it in some other doc, e.g. sl-impact. > > > >I agree with Pekka. HAving this in writing somewhere is important. > > I'd be happy to dust off my sl-impact draft, and update it based > on the feedback I've received so far, if folks think that would be > useful... > > Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
