Re: [Roll] re-organizing use-of-rplinfo document: worth the typing?

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

I think implementers will use either one of storing or non-storing.  At
least for me, having a dedicated section describing the specific method of
operation is useful (versus having to read through and skip over the MOP
not in use).

Plus it saves you having to edit the current draft!

Don Sturek



On 5/10/17, 9:24 AM, "Roll on behalf of Michael Richardson"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>
>It has been suggested that in draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-14 that we
>change
>the presentation of the use cases.  That instead of having 12 storing and
>then 12 non-storing cases, that we instead have 12 cases, and within each
>discuss the non-storing and storing subcases.
>
>Doing this involves moving a lot of text around, so before we do this,
>we'd
>like to get some rough consensus that this would be a better presentation.
>
>Do we need to do the run-through of the Berlin IETF96 slides again at the
>Prague meeting?
>       
>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zdjzlLo-gWa1DEug3zQ7aMqWJ3PDM4Hajt
>-uAOexynA/edit?usp=sharing
>       
>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zdjzlLo-gWa1DEug3zQ7aMqWJ3PDM4Hajt
>-uAOexynA/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=60000
>       
>http://www.sandelman.ca/SSW/ietf/roll/useofrplinfo/ietf96-slides-v1.pdf
>
>
>Given that 2460bis has not given us the desired collapse of the HbH option
>type as we thought would happen,  upon the advice of reviewers and Area
>Director(s), useofrplinfo will be revised to update RFC6553 to change the
>HbH
>type code.  Let us get that text ready, and so the WG can react better.
>
>
>--
>Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Roll mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll