[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IPv6 for Some Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts"



>  > (1) I think that this document should explicitly state, in the
>  > introduction, that it is not a standard and is not intended to
>  > modify or contradict any IPv6 standard documents.  I thought that
>  > we had agreed to something like this earlier.

> Yes, we had agreed this and we even had the note... until we were told
> that we shouldn't re-state the type of the document in the text.

Since, I'm apparently the one who "told" you this, let me
clarify. What I thought I requested was taking out all references to a
particular RFC being a "standard" (vs. informational or something
else). Just referring to the RFCs as RFCs is preferred. As a general
rule, an RFC shouldn't be stating what the status of another RFC is,
since this can change over time.

My comments should not be interpreted as precluding making the changes
Margaret is requesting.

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------