[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Results of Adoption call for <draft-fgont-6man-rfc4941bis-01>
From:       Bob Hinden <bob.hinden () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-06-29 22:48:08
Message-ID: 5A42F947-0E3C-4DA1-BBDE-6AF306C92F08 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Fernando,

> On Jun 29, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
> 
> Hello, Bob,
> 
> On 06/22/2018 06:14 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The chairs think there is support to adopt this draft as a 6man document.
> 
> Should we resubmit as draft-ietf?
> 

Yes, once there is some change in content.

> 
> > The -01 draft removes acknowledgments that are in RFC4941, we think these should \
> > be restored.  It is a bis document.
> 
> Indeed. If you have a suggestion on how to do that ("this document is a
> revision of... the authors of that document wanted to thank..."?),
> please do let me know (I didn't know how to proceed here).
> 

Something like having it in two parts, the first original acknowledgments for \
RFC4941, and the second for the bis document.

> 
> > The -01 draft has references to a several individual Internet Drafts, we are not \
> > sure these should be listed in a revision to RFC4941.  We would like to see this \
> > discussed.
> 
> Indeed, part of the discussion is whether we should have a document with
> the requirements (a la RFC8064), an have RFC4941 focus on an
> implementation that complies with such requirements, whether to
> incorporate the requirements here, or what. I'd probably go for the
> former, since it mimics what we did for stable addresses (requirements
> in one document, implementation details in another).
> 
> Should I start a new thread to discuss this?

Yes.

Thanks,
Bob


> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> 
> 


["signature.asc" (signature.asc)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAls2tygACgkQrut0EXfn
u6hwNwf+OXmojOJ13Tg/eGfxlA38fnYL0q2KaLE0EYXCU0BvFJEg2pDLTGkLk0dp
/d5JaLZPysCOLvWvr7nuoXQ+e/dPJjqp53+DtESDMIU5l8ZoeoN3RL0pY2zhkeDd
II1pXRrXBpXhwqvMbkwjF0LfjGn9EWBvxhzr9HQuinCwuzj7TGRyMHqMz8Rkoov5
vXyB++++ynvg8QYteq9Sh2WQYnFNpXh3Fg1Z2PLMM7AtMLFjz/bv/GY+qGOqX4qb
sXzSGMvzwI35LhzrTbMQuu5ZYAmQhlfYcW5wGlKe5FdrRsUFxLfyOlbYXA6uOr3h
oCLw+uIhmO+4NrErxsj53trQF04teQ==
=KOtm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]