Hi Ron and Carlos, I will change my "updates RFC2473" to "should cite RFC2473". That RFC already supports encapsulation of GRE in IPv6 and should be cited as such.
Thanks - Fred [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:30 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > Fred, > > If the current document were published tomorrow, would RFC 2473 > implementation have to change in order to remain RFC 2473 > compliant? If so, how? If not, the current document does not update RFC 2473. > > Ron > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:54 PM > > To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected]; > > intarea- > > [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > 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. > > > > 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] > > > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
