On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
NEW:
NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with
it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF
standards for IPv6. It uses the normative keywords defined in the
previous section only for precision.
That's better, thanks. I still think it's important for the document to say that it's not necessary to do all mountain of work to deploy IPv6, because otherwise there's the risk that product managers/implementors will say, "Wait, are you're saying that to deploy IPv6 we have to do all that work? We can't do all that. Let's focus on something else instead."
How about changing "is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6" to "is not required to deploy IPv6 on other networks or to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6"?