Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 06:59:16 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IPv6 Node Requirements
	Author(s)	: J. Loughney
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt
	Pages		: 23
	Date		: 19-Jun-02
	
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.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:25:27 +0300

Hi all,

This draft has now be announced.  It is the product of a design team
formed in Minneapolis.

I will say that the current draft needs work, there are a number of 
open issues, some of which can only be addressed through the WG
process.

I'm firstly interested in comments on the format & scope of the document.
Is the approach we took reasonable?  

thanks to all involved in the design team.

best regards,
john

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 20 June, 2002 13:59
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt
> 
> 
> 	"FILE 
> /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt".
> 	

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:31:07 +0300

Hi Adam,
 
I agree.  We are planning on doing that (I thought I put a placeholder in the doc for this).  I actually wanted to add this after we get some feedback on the draft, just to ease document editing.
 
John

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Adam Machalek [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 20 June, 2002 22:12
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt

My first comment is structural in nature.  Six months ago when we started our IPv6 implementation I spent several weeks wading through all the IPv6 and NGTrans RFCs and drafts in order to catagorize them into what this draft terms "unconditional manditory", "conditional mandatory", and "unconditionally optional".  From there we were able to focus our effort.   

While it is clearly defined in the text of the draft, I would have appreciated an Appendix with nothing more then a list of the relevent RFCs/Drafts grouped into those 3 catagories.   

Adam Machalek