Subject: RE: potpourri

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:00:47 +0300

> As the IPv6 working group draws to a close the *only* proper action is to
> recommend to the IESG that all stable and eligible documents be progressed
> along the standards track. The IESG will do whatever it would anyway, so it
> does no good to try to fineness things by endless debates about last minute
> tweaks and the resulting potential to recycle in place. If there are minor
> clarifications to make, those should be done as independent documents in the
> context of addenda to the stable documents. IPv6 as the components which
> functionally replace RFC 791, 826, etc. is complete. Solving problems that
> are still unsolved in IPv4 remains as work for continuing or future working
> groups. That does not diminish the stability of the base documents, so they
> need to progress now.

For what it's worth, I think Tony makes an excellent point.  I think that
we've done good work in the IPv6 on developing & progressing these documents,
and we should not try to second guess what the IESG will or will not say.

John

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

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 07:23:24 +0200

more to the point, the WG should change documents if they need to be  
changed, not if they feel someone else will worry that they need to  
be changed. The WG should send the *right* docs to the IESG, and  
presumably this is the set that it now has.