A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers
Author(s) : S. Krishnan
Filename: draft-ietf-6ma
Speaking as an individual, but drawing on my experience as a contributor
to one of the profile specifications you mention, it seems this draft
could be one of the following:
1. a roadmap/reading list for IPv6 implementors and evaluators (thus
informational, and without any RFC 2119 language)
On 2008-12-04 04:56, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Upleveling for a minute, why are we even including Link Layers in the
> Node *Requirements* doc?
>
> Clearly, we aren't *requiring* any of them, since choice of
> appropriate L2s depends on the environment.
...
> How about removing all of the individual
I've recently reread draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.txt, and I think
it might be good to think about the overall purpose/scope of this
document.
We have often said/assumed that the document is informational, and
does not make any new requirements that don't already exist in
standards track RFCs.
> >5.2 - should RFC 5175 - extensions to RA flags - be included?
> Issue 8: This would be good to add as well.
Can we see proposed text please?
I'm on the fence on this one. From an implementation perspective, it
makes little sense for anyone to go off and implement this
today. Until there is a
Upleveling for a minute, why are we even including Link Layers in the
Node *Requirements* doc?
Clearly, we aren't *requiring* any of them, since choice of
appropriate L2s depends on the environment.
Indeed, draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.txt says:
4. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must inclu
