On Jan 24, 2005, at 3:14 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Erik Nordmark wrote:
That would be better than informational.I wonder whether Experimental wouldn't send a clearer signal that there is some doubt about the viability of the solution.
I agree. But I also think that if the document has inconsistencies those should be corrected even before publishing it as experimental.
Fixing inconsistencies is a strict minimum that can be expected. This is a wg duty.
That said, I have a problem with publishing a document related to ND that specify
something that will not work with the IETF standardized approach to secure ND.
Either, the deployment of ndproxy will be marginal and there will be no problems, but in that case, why even bother publishing it? Or NDproxy picks up and it may become an obstacle to get SEND deployed.
The argument that NDproxy will only be used in a certain environments where SEND is not needed is clearly bogus, The IETF is not about defining standards for special cases but for the whole Internet.
Erik seems to hint that there are ways to get NDproxy to work with SEND,
IMHO, those should be explored and the current document should be put on hold
until this is resolved.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
