Seems to me we all agree on this much: >> First getting this one out since it fix something quite broken,
Regards Brian On 2011-12-16 23:49, Tim Chown wrote: > Well, there are two questions here. > > One is whether the WG believes the update as described in > draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05 is correct and complete. I have not seen > (yet) any significant technical concerns raised. The last of those were > discussed and (we believe) resolved in Quebec. Are there any more? > > The other is whether the WG believes we should publish an update, or a > complete fresh version of RFC3484. This was discussed previously in the WG > and the update path preferred. If a fresh version is now deemed more > appropriate, I am fine to work on that with the other authors if required. > > We just need a decision so we can progress this - it's been so close to > release for a long time. Many of the changes in the update have been > implemented in a number of platforms already. > > Tim > > On 16 Dec 2011, at 09:38, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Roger, >>> >>> On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> Hmm sorry for being unclear, the technical part looked okay as far as >>>> I could tell, but as the quoted words from you, it will probably be >>>> more confusing to have two documents where the last one update/change >>>> the first one. Would be much better to have just one >>>> replacing/updating the old one. >>> That was my first thought, but then I realised it would cause a lot >>> of delay, and I think getting these changes deployed is quite urgent. >> what about doing it in two step? First getting this one out since it fix >> something quite broken, and then update the old RFC? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Roger Jorgensen | >> [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! >> http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected] >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [email protected] >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
