It seems to me that it would be easier to obsolete RFC 4311 rather than trying to keep it and 2461bis in sync? And what's in 4311 seems straightforward and flexible enough to be easy to incorporate in 2461bis, no?
If it weren't for the delay that option c might cause, wouldn't it be the simplest solution in the long run? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Thaler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:04 PM > To: Soliman, Hesham; Bob Hinden > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: 2461bis and host-load-sharing > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
