Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> > (I do also happen to think that it would be better if we waited a decade
> > before changing this, because we're only 5 or so years into large-scale
> > deployment that will hopefully last at least 3 or 4 decades. However, I
> > don't expect many people to agree with me on that, so I'm not trying to
> > make that argument here.)
>
> Isn't that actually an argument for waiting before moving rfc4291bis to
> full standard?
>
> If you'd wait to change it, why would you want to cast this into stone
> now? So that, later you can argue that "it's a full standard document...
> so we shouldn't change it"?


I don't see why that argument would carry any weight. Full standards can be
changed and updated, too.

What I most care about is that if we make fundamental changes like this,
then it's not done as part of a reclassification, and the working group has
its say.

Whether the document says "full standard" or "draft standard" is not as
important as whether it says the right thing.