John - I should have been more careful in my use of "we", which I had
intended to mean the IETF as a whole. I agree that the issue of
"implemented and interoperable" is not within the IPv6 WG's scope. It
wouldn't hurt for the WG to be aware of the potential issues and come to an
explciit decision
Hi Ralph,
> I also agree that we should be more precise in our acceptance of
> "implemented and interoperable". I fear that the current practice can be
> (and has been) applied selectively to allow advancement of some standards
> while holding back others.
I'm not sure that your point above is s
I agree 100% with Pekka's assessment of the current state of
interoperability testing, reporting and requirements as applied to
advancement of protocol standards.
I also agree that we should be more precise in our acceptance of
"implemented and interoperable". I fear that the current practice can
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
> In any event, I'd first like to clarify the general point before going
> to each detail to avoid further confusion. The question is:
>
> We do not have an implementation on some part of RFC2462. Can we
> st
