On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, <mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com>
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"?