[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

On 6/18/11 8:11 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Jan,
>
>>> My personal preference is variant 2. Less text is good I think.
>>
>> Agree to some extent...
>>
>> What does one RFC means to procurement people and how they check if CPE fits the requirements? In this case procurement guy needs to interpret all requirements from one RFC instead of the given list.
>>
>> still not sure...
>
> RFC6104 _is_ just that; a device profile to be used for procurement.
> replicating this work in RIPE-501 seems redundant and more cause for confusion than help. we do after all have 3 of the IPv6 CPE profiles now. eRouter from CableLabs, TR-124i2 from BroadbandForum and RFC6104 from the IETF.

ok, so I understand this as vote for variant 2. :)

anyone else care for voting?

Ole, don't get me wrong, We are just doing the sanity check with 
community. Less text is more.

/jan