Hi Jinmei,
You have a point. I agree with you about the downref rule being an
NOP for implementers (I do not care either). This is another reason that
I wanted to go with an IANA registry for the purpose. Then we do not
have to worry about the administrative hurdles of the downref. I will
wait for further comments from the WG before I make the change.
Cheers
Suresh
JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
At Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:53:48 -0400,
Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out. I will be adding the reference to
RFC2526 under Informational. Yes.
Okay, then the problem is whether we can safely categorize the
reference to RFC2526 as informative. I personally don't think it's
safe:
address RFC will become a draft standard; but I'd categorize it as
normative in the above context because implementors must refer to
RFC2526 to implement the privacy-addrs spec.
but I personally wouldn't oppose to your proposed action either (I
often feel the downref rule doesn't help much for implementors in
practice while it can easily be an unnecessary showstopper in the
standardization process). In any event, I think we should confirm the
consensus about the categorization in this wg (and possibly with the
ADs).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
