[node req] Should I include points to current set of draft updates?

To: <ipv6 at ietf.org>
Subject: [node req] Should I include points to current set of draft updates?
From: john.loughney at nokia.com
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:12:16 +0200
List-help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,<mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,<mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: ipv6-admin at ietf.org
Thread-index: AcPyMwDqcOn0OZ77Ru+yxQx9NAOMdQ==
Thread-topic: [node req] Should I include points to current set of draft updates?

Hi all,

I  am updating the node requirements, should I put references in for the current set of -bis documents? For example:

	2461-bis
	2462-bis
	ICMPv3
	IPv6 over PPP	
	(anything I missed?)

thanks,
John
	

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

Prev by Date: [node req] Question on Security considerations.
Next by Date: Re: [node req] Should I include points to current set of draft updates?
Previous by thread: [node req] Question on Security considerations.
Next by thread: Re: [node req] Should I include points to current set of draft updates?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[node req] Should I include points to current set of draft updates?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.