RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

> >> Hmm sorry for being unclear, the technical part looked okay as far as
> >> I could tell, but as the quoted words from you, it will probably be
> >> more confusing to have two documents where the last one update/change
> >> the first one. Would be much better to have just one
> >> replacing/updating the old one.
> >
> > That was my first thought, but then I realised it would cause a lot of
> > delay, and I think getting these changes deployed is quite urgent.
> 
> I must agree, there is certainly an urgent need to fix the problems in the current
> RFC 3484, particularly around the handling of ULAs, etc.
> For one example; I am currently working on sorting out proper IPv6 support in
> UPnP and DLNA (targeting CE) and we have (effectively) nothing to point to for
> dynamic source address selection procedures.
> Since there appears to be consensus on the technical changes, is there a way to
> make the needed editorial changes and then advance to IETF last call (or a
> second WG last call at least)?

Resurrecting this thread in the hopes of resurrecting some energy on this draft...

It is not correct that we have consensus on the technical changes, since
I raised a number of technical issues in my review of the document (and
since only Brian and I reviewed, that's 50% of reviewers :)

That said, I think it would be easy to get consensus since I made specific
recommendations that I don't think should be controversial.   But in any case,
this would definitely need a second WGLC.

-Dave