At Thu, 24 May 2007 17:07:49 -0400,
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've identified the following areas in which 00 might be modified,
> based on traffic in this list and a small handful of private mail.
> Please comment on the following, and point out any other outstanding
> issues that I missed.
>
> I intend to circulate candidate text changes to this list before -01
> is submitted, in the interests of making -01 as close to finished as
> possible.
>
> 1. More description on what the potential problems with RH0 are.
> Whilst it appears there there is general agreement that a detailed
> treatment would best belong in a separate document, some stand-alone
> summaries in deprecate-rh0 would be useful.
>
> Illjitsch sent some text, and I had previously worked on some
> summaries of the issues presented at CanSecWest. I propose to add
> some suitable summary text to the Security Considerations section.
>
> 2. More precise description of what deprecate means in the context of
> this document.
>
> 3. Tidying up the language in section 4.2 ("regardless of type") to
> make it less ambiguous.
>
> 4. Adding "Updates: 4294" (IPv6 Node Requirements).
>
> What else did I miss?
>
>
This seems like a good list. I am hoping that 01 might be done soon
and moved on so that I can be comfortable updating the code.
Best,
George
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
