On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400 Bill Bogstad <bogs...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <ober...@es.net> wrote: > >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 > >> From: Mark Smith > >> <na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> > >> > >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 > >> Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt > >> > > >> > >> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they? > > > > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a > > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes > > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by > > anyone with a large network running IPv6.) > > And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related. That > seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have > implemented them by now. > The IETF standards process is different to other standards organisations - publication of an RFC doesn't make it a standard. It is much more pragmatic, as operational history is also used as an input into the decision. > Bill Bogstad
