> -----Original Message----- > From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:19 PM > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-capable nodes must support IPv6 - newdraft- > george-ipv6-required > > > Yes, there ought to be a list of IPv6 requirements, ala RFCs 1122, > > 1123, and 1812 (and their supplementary RFCs). > > Ditto. I am sure that we could come up with few more. > [WES] I think that those lists already exist for IPv6, but not always in exactly the same form as the IPv4 specs you reference above. I assume that the IPv6 specifications aren't listed as updates to the above IPv4 RFCs because IPv6 was considered optional, not a direct replacement for IPv4. I wasn't about to go so far as to deprecate the appropriate IPv4 spec in favor of the IPv6 one... baby steps :-) Either way, this draft is meant to be a generic update informing those who are considering putting an IP stack on their device, whether dumb or smart, simple or complex, that they need to stop considering IPv6 optional. We intentionally kept it generic so that it could be adopted more quickly - the sooner we correct the lack of IPv6 support in devices and software, the better off we are.
That said, it may be helpful to write a draft comparing IPv4 and IPv6 for feature parity to identify future work items for IETF and point to the appropriate RFCs where equivalent features exist, but I view that as complimentary to this draft, not part of it. I agree that the more specific information about what we mean by "support IPv6" should be made available, but as references, not text in the draft itself. The draft already references ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router, and RFC 4294, which I've been informed will soon be replaced by a BIS version (currently draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis). I will update that reference in the next version of the draft. The draft also formally updates 1812 and 1122. I can add 1123 to that list of updated drafts if there is consensus that it should be added. Brian Carpenter also recommended (offlist) that we might want to consider adding RFC4084 to the update list, specifically, moving "Version" from section 4 (additional terminology) to section 2 (general terminology). What are your thoughts on that? What else is missing as a reference? Keep in mind that the existing referenced drafts and RFCs have multiple normative and informative references of their own which we didn't see the need to duplicate here. Thanks for the support thus far. Wes George
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
