Francis Dupont wrote: > Perhaps some of us didn't remember but: > - I predicted the RFC 3484 will be always at least a phase back from > what we want. > - I predicted too it would take a not reasonable amount of time to > get the document published or updated. > Unfortunately both predictions were right so again I propose to make > this a BCP and *not* a standard track document.
I'd agree with making it a BCP, or even of an Informational RFC. It just doesn't fit the mold of a standards track document. There are no two "interoperable" implementations, for example, as there is no interaction between two address selection algorithms on two sides of IPv6 communication. -Seb -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
