Thomas Narten wrote:
For changes to the router intervals, that seems like the kind of minor
change/clarification that has been allowed in other documents. And
note that we are _recycling_ at draft, not _advancing_ to draft.
A discussion about advertisement intervals happened back on 10/29/06 -
Hesham raised this issue, and Raj and others agreed we should not change
the wording:
I like Jinmei's proposal of rejecting the issue as far as changing 2461bis
value goes. Because even the Max value of 2999 seconds is still not good
enough for some links.
So I think it is best to let IPv6 over foo specific documents specify what
router configuration variables are modified or over-ridden (from the default
2461bis).
-Basavaraj
Adding things from 3775 back-into 2461bis doesn't seem like the right
thing to do, it will change the router requirements to be 2461bis + some
parts of 3775, even though that router might never be a home agent. I
think the "layering" of RFCs works just fine in this instance.
-Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
