Re: RFC 2461- issue list

[Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>]

Erik,
     The goal at this point is to recycle at DS.  I have a query
into the ADs as to whether or not we should consider moving it
to Full Standard.

     Given that target, the primary goal is to clarify issues in
the spec.  I feel that including some additional definitions, such
as the MIPv6 R bit, is reasonable.  I do not want to see wholesale
changes put in this spec from other specs.  Anything added to the
spec should not break backwards compatibility with existing
implementations.

     This applies to the update to 2462 as well.

Regards,
Brian

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> I have a high-level question first; is the intent to do these updates
> and recycle the document as a draft standard?
> Or to try to move it to full standard?
>
> If recycle at draft is the goal, are there documents (such as MIPv6)
> which contain extensions to the packet formats which should be folded
> into the base ND spec at this point in time?
>
> In addition to the MIP issues in your list there is (at least) the
> definition of the R bit in the prefix option, and the advertisement
> interval option.
>
>    Erik
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------