Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

in this context, I think copying IPv4 expectations is reasonable. They  
are, after all, not really IPv4 expectations - they are how IPv4  
systems are implemented having observed transports and applications  
that could ride on either. Those applications and transports won't  
complain about having longer timeouts from IPv6, but they're not  
likely to benefit much either, IMHO.

On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:34 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
> So, can the working group give me a more reasonable number to use in  
> the -06 revision I'm composing today?  Otherwise, I'll just increase  
> it from two to four minutes, and we'll revisit in -07 if necessary.

I would suggest leaving it the same and referencing the source RFC.