Erik,
The goal at this point is to recycle at DS. I have a query
into the ADs as to whether or not we should consider moving it
to Full Standard.Given that target, the primary goal is to clarify issues in the spec. I feel that including some additional definitions, such as the MIPv6 R bit, is reasonable. I do not want to see wholesale changes put in this spec from other specs. Anything added to the spec should not break backwards compatibility with existing implementations.
This applies to the update to 2462 as well.
Regards, Brian
Erik Nordmark wrote:
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?
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.
Erik
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
