John, It would be nice to have requirements traceability in the IPv6 Node requirements document. We know you have listed all of the documents where everything came from, but it would be good to say which parts came from which documents. Some traceability is already done in the document, but it would be good to have traceability for all of the requirements. For example, saying that "this requirement stems from section x.y.z of RFCXXXX".
Thanks. Wes & Hemant -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:54 PM To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Updates to Node Requirements-bis Hi all, I am issuing a quick rev to the Node Req.-bis. There are a couple of bugs, with respect to the references, that I need to fix still, but I switched to using Symbolic References, and added a quick & dirty list of changes from RFC4294. One question, I assume that I should include "Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095 in the document. Any other suggestions of things that should still be included in the draft? thanks, John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
