A draft standard can't have a normative reference to a proposed standard. I believe the options are: a) remove the problematic text from 2461bis and don't replace it with anything (i.e., be silent on the issue). I'm not sure what the state of 4311 changes to then, since it's updating an obsoleted RFC. b) replace the text with a note that is classified as an informative reference to 4311. c) replace the text with the 2 paragraphs from 4311, and have 2461bis also obsolete 4311. This doesn't yet qualify per Draft Standard rules so I don't think this option is really viable without delaying 2461bis.
I believe Hesham is suggesting (b), and if appropriate text can be constructed I would support this. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:22 AM > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: Dave Thaler; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: 2461bis and host-load-sharing > > Hi Bob, > > > > Dave, > > > > > > I think we can handle this during IESG last call. Does anyone > > > oppose Dave's suggestion > > > below to update this statement according to RFC 4311 ? > > > > Before answering the question, what would the exact change be to > > draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05.txt? > > => Sorry, I think I assumed too much. I was proposing the removal of > that sentence and replacing it with a reference to RFC 4311. I can > send exact text to the list. > > Hesham > > > > > One consideration is that the update to 2661 is being submitted at > > Draft standard and we need to be carefull to not make incompatible > > changes. This probably not the case here, but I would like to see > > the proposed text. > > > > Thanks, > > Bob > > > > > > > Thx, > > > Hesham > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > > Of Dave Thaler > > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:37 PM > > To: JINMEI Tatuya / ???? > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: 2461bis and host-load-sharing > > > > draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05.txt says in 6.3.6: > > > > An implementation may choose to always return the same router or > > > > cycle through the router list in a round-robin fashion as long > > > > as it always returns a reachable or a probably reachable router > > > > when one is available. > > > > However RFC 4311 (draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-04.txt) updates > > > > RFC 2461, is a Proposed Standard, and says: > > > > [ND] ... > > > > specifies that an implementation may always choose the same router > > > > (e.g., the first in the list) or may cycle through the routers in > > > > a round-robin manner. Both of these suggestions are problematic. > > > > [...] > > > > If 2461bis is intended to obsolete RFC 2461, then I think the > > statement > > > > in 6.3.6 should be updated to be in accordance with RFC 4311. > > Otherwise > > > > RFC 4311 will have to be republished to update 2461bis. > > > > -Dave > > > > ======================================================== > > 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 > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
