> So, why would updating the RFC be useful, given that the > running code of the IETF is to let the documents gather > enough dust.. and then let them rot because they've become > too dusty to be revived.
I like the above this could work......................... /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Node Requirements in Vancouver RE: Vancouver > 6MAN Agenda updated > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 1) Quite a few RFCs have been updated since the IPv6 Node > Requirements > > document > > was published. Is there interest in updating the IPv6 Node > > Requirements doc? > > Which updates are we thinking about here? Documents which > have Obsoleted (in the RFC editor's registry) old ones? The > implementors (or the customers that write RFPs for them) are > smart enough to figure this out themselves. > > So, why would updating the RFC be useful, given that the > running code of the IETF is to let the documents gather > enough dust.. and then let them rot because they've become > too dusty to be revived. > > Don't we have better things to spend our cycles, i.e., things > that are actually broken (e.g., RFC3484 issues) instead of > just updating obsoleted RFC numbers? > > Unless there is clear justification why just updating a > couple of RFC numbers would be beneficial, we should probably either: > > a) forget about the update or > > b) consider a more throrough process including obtaining > IETF Consensus on what the IPv6 node requirements really are > (make it BCP or standards track). > > I think b) is what USG is using this document for even though > it currently doesn't have any IETF consensus behind it (it's > just an informative list of some RFCs somewhat related to IPv6). > > Some might say the current state is somewhat problematical > and making a superficial update without fixing the root > problems could make the matter even worse. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
