Re: I-D Action: draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header-01.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 05/07/2014 03:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
> On 07/05/2014 22:39, Fernando Gont wrote:
> ...
>>> Nits: I don't see why this draft is tagged as Standards Track
>>> and Updates 2460. It's an informational discussion.
> 
> (My error: it claims to update 6564 in fact, but my comment stands.)
> 
>>
>> It's std track. And the "update" tag is because the UEH would be part of
>> the v6 specification (not to mention that otherwise it would be
>> virtually impossible for an IPv6 implementer to spot this document in
>> the first place).
> 
> Sorry, that seems completely wrong to me. draft-gont-6man-rfc6564bis
> is clearly standards track and this one clearly isn't. To quote
> the Abstract, it "analyzes a problem... and discusses a number of
> possible solutions." That's Informational.

You're right about that. Explanation:

The original I-D was clearly std track, proposing a specific solution.
Since some folks suggested that there might be different possible paths
forward, we took a step back, and made this version comment on the
possible options, in the hopes that the next rev or some next rev would
stick to one of them.

I guess that we could just kept version -00, and publish a separate I-D
for the analysis of the possible options...

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492