17 Jun
2011
17 Jun
'11
5:10 p.m.
BTW, just to let you know, there is a Cisco position paper on RIPE-501 :) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/brief_c80-... We should probably address their comments, specially the one that talks about RFC sets: "In option 1, RIPE-501 cherry-picks requirements from USGv6 and then adds its own without enough justification. We think that weakens the credibility of the document." We got solid consensus on RFC sets and changes were not taken "out-of-the-blue". I think we need to stress out this fact in the document. Any suggestions? /jan