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

From: "Adam Machalek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:11:30 -0500

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:46:05 +0300

> RFCs/Drafts grouped into those 3 catagories.  

I agree.

[If there is a special case where an RFC has parts that belong
to different categories, we can list them as "RFC nnnn
(partially)" on those categories.]

Jari

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------