SM, >> possibly; difficult to argue how dependencies should go for a yet-to-be >> written document. ;-) > > There was a message asking Fernando to wait because of a yet-to-be-written > draft. :-) In my opinion the dependency would be non-normative. There > doesn't seem to be much room for argument there.
the action is on the chairs to initiate the WGLC, and subsequently to review the document. given the discussion on the list, we are planning a larger session on privacy, tracking and the interface identifier in Berlin. I thought it would make sense to do the last call on this document, after that discussion. personally I would have preferred to scale back the stable-privacy document, and move some of the general privacy and tracking discussion to a more general draft. the other consideration is also, what's the sudden rush? given that interface-id generation is a local implementation specific matter, there is nothing stopping someone who wants different interface-id's today to go out and implement them. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
