> One thing we may have to care, however, is that the lack of
> implementation might be a barrier of recycling the spec as a
> DS, since
> we'd need to show interoperable implementations.
=> Good point. It would be good to get some clarification on whether
this is an issue though. I mean, considering that both RFCs are already DS.
My understanding was that this is more of an issue for a PS going to DS.
> (I still don't understand what you mean by "things which are already
> working", but anyway) you're correct in that we do not deprecate the
> flags unless we have a clear and strong reason to do so. In
> particular, I understand we should not deprecate them just because
> there is almost no implementation (especially at the host side)
> depending on them.
>
> I do not forget the original intention of the rfc2462bis work:
> recycling the existing document as a draft standard. The default
> decision on a controversial issue should thus be conservative.
>
=> Agreed.
Hesham
========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact
the sender and delete all copies.
========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
