Subject: [dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-03.txt

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:37:42 -0600

DHC WG folks,

Could you please see if any pitfalls exits for the 2 Errata in question
below?  On the IETF IPv6 CE router design team we are discussing to
incorporate the Errata for the IPv6 CE router if the DHC WG reviews the
errata thoroughly and does not find any issues.

RFC3315 errata 2471 and RFC3633 errata 2469 exist.

Thanks,

Hemant

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:56 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti; <[email-masked]>; jouni korhonen
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-03.txt

On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

	Please suggest what specific text we could go with.   Or
rfc6204bis could just stay with its original WPD-7 bullet that anyway
address most of the errata in question.

I think the right thing to do is have a discussion on the DHCwg mailing
list about updating 3315 and 3361 to address these issues.   The
proposed change does "fix" the problem; my concern is that it hasn't
been thought through in detail, and as we experienced at the last IETF,
something that sounds like a good idea at first reading doesn't
necessary stand up when it's subject to scrutiny.

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:39:08 -0600

s/exits/exist.

Sorry for the typo.

Hemant

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-03.txt

DHC WG folks,

Could you please see if any pitfalls exist for the 2 Errata in question
below?  On the IETF IPv6 CE router design team we are discussing to
incorporate the Errata for the IPv6 CE router if the DHC WG reviews the
errata thoroughly and does not find any issues.

Thanks,

Hemant