Hi Subramanian, I think most of your comments will be dealt with by wordsmithing, but...
On 2011-08-21 06:11, SM wrote: ... > From Section 2: > > 'Updates [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4 which use the > generic "IP" synonymously with the more specific "IPv4." Since > RFC1812 is an IPv4 router specification, the generic use of IP in > this standard may cause confusion as IP is redefined to mean IPv4 + > IPv6.' > > The title of RFC 1812 is "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers". The > update proposed in this draft causes even more confusion as it is > unclear what text is being updated in RFC 1812. It't quite clear to me, but we could spell it out: s/IP/IPv4/. > 'Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in > section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic > term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the > Internet Protocol suite by itself.' > > This second update is again confusing as text does not get updated "for > example". As the intended status of this draft is Proposed Standard, > there is a presumption that if it is going to update STD 3, it will do > so clearly. Ditto. > 'Updates [RFC4084] to move "Version Support" from Section 4, > "Additional Terminology" to Section 2, "General Terminology." This > is to reflect the idea that version support is now critical to > defining the types of IP service, especially with respect to Full > Internet Connectivity." > > I don't consider this as a valid reason to update BCP 104. The > "document provides a list of terms and definitions that may be helpful > to providers, consumers, and, potentially, regulators in clarifying the > type and character of services being offered". Moving version support > from Section 4 to Section 2 does not make the document more helpful. Yes it does. It clarifies, for consumer organizations for example, the IPv6 is not additional technology but is part of any general IP service. I > get blank stares when I ask about "IP dresses". I have yet to find out > what will happen when I ask about "IP sex dresses". > > Seriously, BCPs, in general, are about what's happening in the wild and > not IETF wishful thinking. They are about the best practices that the IETF wishes were being used in the wild. If you are going to take a RFC written for a > wider audience and stick an "Updated by" into it, the reader might not > see the change. Of course - we have that problem every time we update any RFC. It is quite orthogonal to the question whether we *should* update the RFC. > > "Rather than update the existing IPv4 protocol specification standards > to include IPv6, IETF has defined a completely separate set of > standalone documents which cover IPv6." > > Was there a reason for that? Yes. Because IPv4 has no address extensibility, it was impossible to update it for larger addresses. That has been known since 1981 or thereabouts. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
