Joel: You only sent your comment to the Gen-ART team. I think you should share it with the IESG at a minimum.
Russ On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01 > IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes > Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern > Review Date: 2-Sept-2011 > IETF LC End Date: 2-Sept-2011 > IESG Telechat date: 8-Sept-2011 > > Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard > > My personal reaction is included here in case it affects anything. I do not > consider that this reaction is sufficient to warrant an IETF LC comment, but > it seems appropriate to note: > > It is not at all clear that having an IETF RFC which says that one MUST > implement IPv6 has any impact. RFCs do not have the force of law or treaty. > And we like it that way. > > The reason I do not consider this a more significant issue is that I do not > think that the over-reach will harm the IETF in any fashion. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
