On 06/16/2011 11:31 AM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 6/7/11 9:19 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Greetings to all,
We would also kindly ask you to voice your support of this document when you agree to the proposed text. This will help us to move forward knowing there is community support to publish a new version of the ripe-501 document. Dear v6 WG :)
Wv6Day is over and we are switching back to regular schedule.
We received some off-list comments for RIPE-501 followup (or next version) document, but we would like to encourage more people to read the draft, posted here on 6.6.2011 and comment - or express support if they agree with the text.
There is at least one voting point in the draft, which CPE spec variant should we leave in the final doc and we need your input on that. We like both of them, which one you prefer?
My personal preference is variant 2. Less text is good I think. A more general question regarding this work is, would you consider "load balancers" as network elements that should be included? I know that load balancing can also be achieved at the application layer, but in the v4 world there are dedicated appliances that provide the functionality and are considered network infrastructure elements. Finally, since I don't have the technical expertise to thoroughly verify the lists of RFCs mentioned, a comment for the writing structure of the document. I can imagine that this is still work in progress but I find the document difficult to read with this structure. Certainly having a table of contents with sections and subsections will help.
Thnx and cheers from the authors, Merike, Sander and Jan
Regards and thanks for the very good work. Kostas Zorbadelos