Fred, > On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Ron, > > RFC2784 punts on IPv6. From Section 9: > >> o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol >> >> This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently >> deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload >> protocol is not included in the currently deployed versions of GRE. > > RFC2784 should have cited RFC2473 as the normative reference for > generic encapsulation in IPv6 but didn't. But, that does not mean > that your document should make the same omission. >
There is no current reference/citation relationship between RFC2784 and RFC2473. There is also no relevant errata filed http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2784 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2784> in the 15 years since publishing. There is no document updating either of those RFCs making your “should have” actual. Ron’s explanation below was clear on why this is so — and why this document does not link to RFC 2473. Thanks, — Carlos. > Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:26 AM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 >> >> Fred, >> >> RFC 2784 doesn't update RFC 2473. This is because RFC 2784 doesn't levy any >> new requirements upon RFC 2473 implementations. >> Implementations that were RFC 2473 compliant the day before RFC 2784 was >> published remained compliant the day after RFC 2784 >> was published. >> >> Likewise, the current draft doesn't update RFC 2473. This is because the >> current draft doesn't levy any new requirements upon RFC >> 2473 implementations. Implementations that are RFC 2473 compliant today will >> remain compliant the day after the current draft is >> published. >> >> Ron >> >> >>> >>> On an even higher level note, RFC2473 already specifies generic >>> encapsulation within IPv6 which implicitly includes GRE. So, if this >>> document >>> goes through it needs to say that it updates RFC2473. >>> >>> Thanks ? Fred >>> [email protected] >>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
