Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 09:12:45AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ:
> So, are we spending too much time in this and is not really necessary?
> 
> Can we live with the actual text with has been in the market, and working well, for “x” years?
> 
> Can we make too many (or few very important) changes in an RFC in the way to STD, or we need first to have those changes in an RFC for “x” years and “n” verified implementations, before we move to STD? If the answer is no, is the balance between living with the current text but moving to STD a better option than waiting for “x” years again?

I prefer the document is fixed now; start the process of fixing classful
implementations now, rather than in x years - or please save operators from
those x+ years of pain.




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]