JINMEI wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:28:05 -0700, Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
My biggest question is: can we recycle rfc2462bis as DS despite fact 3?
I failed to see what is wrong with the unused feature elimination Christian described when moving along the standard track.
Not sure if you're making an objection to what I said, so please let me clarify my point.
I would first like to be sure if it is okay to recycle the document as DS even with the lack of implementation on a part of the protocol description (in this case, the receiving side of the M flag), *process-wise*.
If it's not okay, all the discussion we are having is meaningless; Regardless of whether we prefer the idea of deprecating the flag, or whether what Christian said is valid or not, we have no other choice than deprecating/removing the feature (though there may be some compromise on the details of "deprecate").
If it's okay, then we can continue the discussion.
I've been asking for an answer (if any), not an opinion, from someone very familiar to the standardization process, but unfortunately, I've never seen an answer. The wg chairs are probably the "someone", but as I pointed out, their answer based on incorrect information. Thus, I first corrected the information and then asked the same question.
As a I stated in an earlier message, I believe it is okay to recycle at DS given the granularity of detail in the interoperability reports. http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/nd-auto-implementations.txt clearly shows that the interoperation is being measured at the message level and not at the bit level.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
