On Nov 3, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > John, > > This should not be a surprising or controversial change to the > node-requirements document. The WG made the decision earlier that we'd > leave out a reference to the Flow Label work because we didn't want to > have node-requirements block waiting for it, but we would revisit if > that work finished in time. > > It has. > > We should just make this change. There was never any doubt that node > requirements would point to the updated Flow Label RFC.
I completely agree. We should make the change now. -shane > If we say "do it later, when we rev the document again", we should be > realistic in that that probably won't happen for at least another year > and probably more like 2+ years. > > Thomas > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
