RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Given that we have so much work to do and given the IETF does agree we
> have a time-to-market or get the spec done problem it is a backward step
> to go to PS and we should remain DS.

I'm not sure what you mean with "remain DS".

Do you mean, "go from PS to DS, as planned previously" ?

Or, "remain at the DS level" (taken literally) -- which would be factually
incorrect, because RFC2893 is only PS.  (If RFC2893 was DS, I'd certainly
agree.)

> There is nothing technically complex changed or even required to change
> in implementation.

I think the MTU sections, at least, have seen some rather extensive
changes.  (Of course, the amount of editorial corrections and
clarifications is also large.)  I'm not sure if we could find many
conformant implementations out of the box (not sure if that'd be required,
of course).

Some further modifications based on LC comments are also very likely.  
What is the amount (and scope) of those changes is of course still a 
question mark.

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