On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:01 , Ronald Bonica wrote: > I agree that the references to I-D.gont-6man-oversized-header-chain > and gont-6man-nd-extension-headers should both be NORMATIVE, > and not INFORMATIVE. Sorry for having missed this. Thank you. > If Fernando were to post an updated version that makes this change, > would it address all of your issues? The full set of edits previously agreed are summarised in this note to the v6ops WG list: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13258.html> At least this other note from Fernando to the v6ops list also seems relevant: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13257.html> Several of the previously-agreed edits are not present in the I-D referenced in today's IETF Last Call. The delta isn't huge, but there are other agreed edits -- beyond just how the two related draft-6man-* I-Ds are cited. I might be confused, but I understand that Fernando has an updated RA-Guard I-D "ready to post". > If Fernando did this, it should address 6man's concerns, > because even if draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation > were approved, it couldn't be published until the other > two drafts are also approved. Fair enough. Thanks very much. Ran