Wes, > sooner we correct the lack of IPv6 support in devices and software, the > better off we are.
+1 > 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. That's reasonable as long as we add appropriate references. > 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. +1 > 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? +1 > 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. Indeed. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: George, Wes E [NTK] [mailto:wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com] > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:50 AM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Joe Touch > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; IPv6 Operations > Subject: RE: [Int-area] IP-capable nodes must support IPv6 -newdraft- > george-ipv6-required > > > -----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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
