>
> Adding MTU negotiations to 2461bis is a non-starter IMHO. The
> purpose of 2461bis is to clarify issues in the existing 2461, not
> add new features.
>
I agree. I don't see how brand new, complex features can be added to the
specification without requiring it to recycle to proposed. You
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:25:28 -0500,
> Soliman Hesham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So can we move forward based on this conclusion
> and not put this in 2461bis ?
I, for one, agree.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communicat
Adding MTU negotiations to 2461bis is a non-starter IMHO. The
purpose of 2461bis is to clarify issues in the existing 2461, not
add new features.
Regards,
Brian
Fred Templin wrote:
Those interested should perhaps have a look at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-0
Those interested should perhaps have a look at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-01.txt
before responding to Hesham's question. I am seeing in that
document some language that may place the bar for acceptance
quite high indeed if we were to adopt Hesham's choice #
Folks,
I've been following this discussion and trying to understand
where people want to solve it. I'm writing my personal
conclusion here and please let me know if you disagree.
First there is the question of: is this worth solving?
and if it is, can it be entirely solved here or do we
need to
