RE: Stateful != M , Stateless != O

[john.loughney@xxxxxxxxx]

Tim &Jinmei,

> > But we need to be careful too in that the Node Requirements draft is
> > just coming out of the oven and was baked using a different 
> recipe :)
> 
> That's perhaps true, though I don't think there will be a big gap
> between the description of the node-req document and (future versions
> of) the M/O document.

Node Requirements is just an informational document, so it should not
be considered Normative in any sense.  If there is a discrepancy between
an informational and a PS/DS/FS then the standard wins out.  I don't
think we really need to wory about this.

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------