Re: Comments: draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
> I believe this draft is an excellent and important piece of work for
> v6ops and should be working group item.  I also suggest it be for
> Informational RFC not Standards Track. 
[..]

Thanks for review, Jim.  We (as in, the authors) certainly take these 
edits into consideration.. all seem very useful.

<WG char hat=on>

To clarify to the WG where we stand with this document..

In Minneapolis, there will be presentation + discussion of this.  We'll
try to gauge whether folks feel this should be a WG document.  Currently,
there seems to me a rather clear sense that this work is going on the
right track.

The target category is indeed Informational RFC.

The only other option for the category would be BCP, but I'm not convinced
it would be useful to fully formalize the coding practices and advice
given in the document.. and whether that would be our job.

<WG chair hat=off>

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings