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

Seems to me we all agree on this much:

>> First getting this one out since it fix something quite broken,

Regards
   Brian

On 2011-12-16 23:49, Tim Chown wrote:
> Well, there are two questions here.
> 
> One is whether the WG believes the update as described in draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05 is correct and complete.  I have not seen (yet) any significant technical concerns raised.  The last of those were discussed and (we believe) resolved in Quebec.  Are there any more?
> 
> The other is whether the WG believes we should publish an update, or a complete fresh version of RFC3484.  This was discussed previously in the WG and the update path preferred.  If a fresh version is now deemed more appropriate, I am fine to work on that with the other authors if required.
> 
> We just need a decision so we can progress this - it's been so close to release for a long time.  Many of the changes in the update have been implemented in a number of platforms already.
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 16 Dec 2011, at 09:38, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roger,
>>>
>>> On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>>>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find the changes is better."
>>>>>
>>>>> If it wasn't clear, I believe this document is technically done and needs
>>>>> to be advanced, but it does need editorial work as indicated above.
>>>> 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.
>> what about doing it in two step? First getting this one out since it fix
>> something quite broken, and then update the old RFC?
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Roger Jorgensen           |
>> rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
>> http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 