Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04.txt> (Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)) to Best Current Practice

[RJ Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

On 26  Oct 2012, at 14:01 , Ronald Bonica wrote:
> I agree that the references to I-D.gont-6man-oversized-header-chain
> and gont-6man-nd-extension-headers should both be NORMATIVE,
> and not INFORMATIVE. Sorry for having missed this.

Thank you.


> If Fernando were to post an updated version that makes this change,
> would it address all of your issues?



The full set of edits previously agreed are summarised
in this note to the v6ops WG list:
  <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13258.html>


At least this other note from Fernando to the v6ops list 
also seems relevant:
  <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13257.html>


Several of the previously-agreed edits are not present in the 
I-D referenced in today's IETF Last Call.  The delta isn't huge,
but there are other agreed edits -- beyond just how the two related
draft-6man-* I-Ds are cited.
  

I might be confused, but I understand that Fernando 
has an updated RA-Guard I-D "ready to post".

> If Fernando did this, it should address 6man's concerns,
> because even if draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation
> were approved, it couldn't be published until the other
> two drafts are also approved.

Fair enough.


Thanks very much.

Ran