On 06/19/2013 09:48 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> I tend to agree with Fernando. The dependency is the other way round; >> stable-privacy-addresses is a reference for the new draft. > > possibly; difficult to argue how dependencies should go for a yet-to-be > written document. ;-) > we're looking at having a session on privacy/tracking and interface > identifiers in Berlin. > my suggestion was to do the WGLC for stable-privacy-addresses after that.
Just to get a clear picture: * We're stalling a wg item because you think that draft-ietf-stable-privacy-addresses should have a (normative?) reference to a document that the wg did not even express interest in? * I went through the energy-consuming exercise of addressing all the comments we had received. But now the document is stalled for other reason. * Has the wg ever decided to wait till July/August (1.5 months from now) to ship the document? -- So far, all comments I've seen (at least 5) have argued in favor of shipping the document... so it looks like there's consensus on shipping... Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
