Hi Fred,
On Apr 9, 2005, at 17:14, Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 8, 2005, at 11:38 PM, Alain Durand wrote:I'm not sure I follow you... The change is in 2461bis, not 2462bis.
Sorry, you're correct. That said, this merely amplifies the question - and understand that I am simply asking a question. In English, we often say that "there is more than one way to skin a cat". David is saying that wiith 2461bis and adoption of the proposal in it by various vendors, there may be no real need to publish this document. Is there another way to document the information that might be superior? Or is publishing this one the superior process? That's the question.
So 2461bis has not even been submitted to the ADs (2462bis has been submitted and sent back for revision). Your assertion is that at least part of the problem is that 2461bis doesn't contain a discussion of why a certain change was made. Well, would it be worthwhile to put that discussion into 2461bis, perhaps in an appendix? Or are there other reasons to publish specifically this document?
And as co-chair of IPv6 WG, I can help coordinate that work if the v6ops determines that is the path we want to follow.
Regards, Brian
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature