Well, the end of my conversation is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find the changes is better." If it wasn't clear, I believe this document is technically done and needs to be advanced, but it does need editorial work as indicated above. Also there was Dave's review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14984.html In IESG parlance that all seems like "new I-D needed" to me. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-12-16 08:07, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > On Dec 15, 2011 7:32 PM, "Brian Haberman" <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> Unfortunately, the draft is in a limbo state at this point. The WG >> Last Call ended about a month ago with zero comments or statements of >> support. The chairs cannot advance this document without some show of >> support by the community. >> >> I humbly request that members of the working group review this >> draft and post their comments, questions, and suggestions to the mailing >> list. > > Brian Carpenter said it all in this post: > > Message-ID: <4eb9d332.1040...@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:11:14 +1300 > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > > <snip> > Reading this document as a proposed standard, I think it will confuse > the reader. I think that what we actually need is a 100% replacement > of RFC 3484, that can be read on its own. > </snip> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------