Subject: RE: interop requirements for DS [Re: whether we need the M flag ??]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:41:48 +0300

Hi Ralph,

> I also agree that we should be more precise in our acceptance of
> "implemented and interoperable".  I fear that the current practice can be
> (and has been) applied selectively to allow advancement of some standards
> while holding back others.

I'm not sure that your point above is something that is within the IPv6
WGs scope.  Perhaps this needs to be taken up with the IESG or elsewhere.

John

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

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:26:25 -0400

John - I should have been more careful in my use of "we", which I had
intended to mean the IETF as a whole.  I agree that the issue of
"implemented and interoperable" is not within the IPv6 WG's scope.  It
wouldn't hurt for the WG to be aware of the potential issues and come to an
explciit decision about how to proceed within the context of past practice
and documented requirements.

- Ralph