Consistent with previous comments by many others, and in my personal opinion, the following items ought to be out-of-scope for the HomeNet documents (and WG activities):
* CPE devices that don't comply with IETF IPv6 specifications (e.g. a CPE device that only can cope with a /64 prefix is broken and hence out of scope for HomeNet WG.) * IPv6 deployments that are inconsistent with existing IETF and RIR guidance on IPv6 prefix management and guidance on IPv6 prefix allocations. (e.g. an IPv6 deployment that refuses to let an end user have a prefix shorter than /64 is broken and out-of-scope) Consistent with that IETF and RIR guidance, the HomeNet WG ought to document that users ought to be granted a prefix shorter than /64 and also that HomeNet equipment is required to comply with IETF IPv6 standards-track specifications. While these might seem obvious to folks who read RFCs regularly, they ought to be documented for the benefit of someone with good intentions who doesn't read RFCs regularly or often and might not understand the "obvious" prerequisites for the HomeNet document(s). The IETF can't prevent others from doing silly things, whether in products or deployments, but we can and should avoid spending WG time trying to build kludges around broken products and broken deployments. Yours, Ran Atkinson _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
