Tom, > Others, like ipng, seem to have > tinkeritis; it is always possible to improve - or at least to change things - so > let's go on changing. The name may change - now it's 6man - but the > discussions, - DHCP, ULA, routing header, RA, ND, compression, it's more than > IPv4(128) - rumble on. I understand the discussions but do not have the relevant > experience to judge whether they are material changes or not, and so long as > that remains the case, then the number of fresh I-Ds leads me to conclude, it's > not done, better wait. You have to separate the sometimes wild discussion, the regular maintenance, and new features (some which aren't even IPv6 specific). As Thomas wrote, indeed the IPv6 core specifications are done. I do not expect or plan to charter work relating to significant changes. I believe what the world needs with regards to IPv6 is that we allow vendors to implement, improve existing implementations, people to deploy, etc. -- not continuous redesign of the core parts, or the suggestions that IPv6 should have features X, Y, and Z to make it more appealing to deploy. For better or worse, the train has left the station. This is not to say that we will not do anything. In particular: *Maintenance*: We are committed to fix bugs etc as we discover them. This is not at all different from what we do for other IETF protocols. Case in point: routing header. We deprecated type 0 routing header due to concerns relating to its use in amplification attacks. But there are similar issues in IPv4 source routing functionality. I have a document on my table suggesting revision of some of the existing default settings and processing rules. We'll deal with that, too. We will continue to maintain and further develop both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6. One of the questions on the table is whether DHCPv6 has sufficient support for managed networks, and whether additional features are needed. We'll deal with that, just like any other extension. I have a hard time seeing major changes in ND. I don't know what you referred to with "Compression". Maybe the work that we're doing with progressing the IPv6 over PPP specs on the standards track? This is normal IETF RFC status updates as we gain more documented interop experience. *Transition*: This is one particular area of concern, and we're considering whether something new (or revised) is needed. I think we do, but I also think that it will not change significantly what networks commonly do. I certainly don't plan on changing anything in the networks that I deal with, because existing transition mechanisms work quite well for them. *New functionality*: This is also business as usual. Some of these things are IPv6 specific. Others are not; a good example of that is the work done for scalable routing which is something that we are going to need first in the IPv4 routing table, as it continues to fragment. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf