Subject: RFC 4294 on IPv6 Node Requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:23:59 -0700

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        RFC 4294

        Title:      IPv6 Node Requirements 
        Author:     J. Loughney, Ed.
        Status:     Informational
        Date:       April 2006
        Mailbox:    [email-masked]
        Pages:      20
        Characters: 39125
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4294.txt

This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and
situations.  Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6
to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations
and deployments.  This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This document is a product of the IP Version 6 Working Group
Working Group of the IETF.

INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. 
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution
of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to [email-masked].  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to [email-masked].

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to [email-masked] with the message body 

help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:

        To: [email-masked]
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
[email-masked].  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.

Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:52:22 +1000

I know this is too late but why wern't the changes from the thread
	http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg01689.html
	incorporated?

	Mark
	
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 06:37:16 +0300

>	http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg01689.html

Looks like I missed that during AUTH48.  Want to file an erratta about
it?
My guess is that at some point, we'll need to make a small rev to the 
document as well, so if it is filed as an erratta, I'll make sure it
will
be rolled in.

John

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:23:06 +0300 (EEST)

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, [email-masked] wrote:
> Looks like I missed that during AUTH48.  Want to file an erratta 
> about it? My guess is that at some point, we'll need to make a small 
> rev to the document as well, so if it is filed as an erratta, I'll 
> make sure it will be rolled in.

Warning: depending on the errata text suggestion, the change may not 
be entirely editorial, so it's not clear whether the RFC-editor would 
even accept it as errata.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:57:11 +1000

> even accept it as errata.

	We will see.  It's been submitted along with the refererence
	to the working group discussion.

 	Mark