Subject: RE: Advancing AAAA to Full standard ?

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:34:06 -0500

> In addition the chairs need at least 5 people to state 
> support for this action.

I support this action.

   - Alain.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:00:32 -0800

Ed,

> ..or can we rewrite the document to remove the
> reference. 

Or there can be a downref by using RFC 3967 procedure in
the Last Call - it just asks the community to agree
that AAAA going to Full Standard doesn't require the IPv6
architecture RFC to go beyond DS.  IMO, the downref
is technically reasonable.  Asking the question
in the Last Call is easy boilerplate.

Allison

---

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:46:31 -0500

Pekka,

This is a good point, still the requests to the IESG to advance all those specs can happen simultaneously.

    - Alain.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
To: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT  co-chair
CC: [email-masked]
Sent: Mon Nov 14 10:39:22 2005
Subject: Re: Advancing AAAA to Full standard ? 

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT  co-chair wrote:
> On the face of it RFC3596 meets all the criteria for advancement,
> it is implemented, deployed and used.

I support this action, HOWEVER, the spec has IPv6 addressing 
architecture as a normative reference; it cannot go to FS withou 
addrarch going to full standard or applying for variance.

So, basically this could be advanced when the v6 protocol bundle gets 
advanced.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
h�{.n�+���zwZ��,j��v�y�覗������-��"z��"�a{
+v�칻�&ފv��x%zX�y�-�鞲Ơzױ��ɪ܆+ކ�i��)�'�~���X����jg���iz�?