A few important points there. I'm not sure I have the answers for all, but here is my understanding:
> I have a high-level question first; is the intent to do these updates > and recycle the document as a draft standard? > Or to try to move it to full standard? => My understanding was that the new RFC would still be in DS, but I could be wrong. It'd be good if the chairs shed some light on this. > > If recycle at draft is the goal, are there documents (such as MIPv6) > which contain extensions to the packet formats which should be folded > into the base ND spec at this point in time? > > In addition to the MIP issues in your list there is (at least) the > definition of the R bit in the prefix option, and the advertisement > interval option. => Right. So I'm not sure if the goal is to include all the ND extensions in other specs, again it would be good to get some feedback on this point. I assumed that extensions would be done anyway in other specs as deemed necessary. So, if this assumption is agreeable then the work should be limited to clarifying points in the spec or solving problems that were discovered by people while working with this version of ND. Do you think we should include these extensions? There is also the process issue on what can be added to a DS, given the requirements on moving from PS to DS (having every option interop tested and some level of deployment), which might stand in the way of adding new extensions from a PS/draft. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
