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