Trying to reply to all previous email messages in one email ;-)

Look for EV>

-éric-happy-to-see-this-initiative

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-wg <[email protected]> on behalf of Tim Chown via ipv6-wg 
<[email protected]>
Reply-To: Tim Chown <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 28 October 2020 at 18:19
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE554-bis

    Hi,

    I’m posting here as a heads-up that an effort has begun to revise RIPE-554, 
involving the original authors, myself and Tim Winters. We have a 5 min slot 
tomorrow in the 1pm CET IPv6 WG session to flag the work, to solicit input.

    The original publication was back in November 2010 with RIPE-501, which was 
updated in June 2012 with RIPE-554. 

    There’s many references that have been obsoleted, and potentially much to 
add or remove. References to 2G cellular date the document.

    We’d like to begin by addressing the more strategic / structural questions. 
Such high level questions include:

    - Is there agreement to progress a –bis version now?  Eight years have 
passed, people ask for guidance…


EV> YES, please do ! knowing that RIPE554 was already a -bis, I would prefer a 
501-ter though ;-)

    - Should we keep the scope to (largely) enterprise or expand it?  If so, to 
what?

EV> large/medium enterprise should indeed be the focus, consumer do not care 
and (wishful thinking ?) providers know better. Although, that I would love to 
see the IPv6 check-list for a smart TV ;-)

    - Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired?

EV> a couple of months ago,  I check with several end-users and vendors, and, 
yes, it is still important (to be surprise to be honest, sorry Tim W)

    - Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power, WiFi 
controllers, …?

EV> perhaps extend to applications? Cloud providers ? Perhaps remove consumer 
switch, load balancer, and network security ?

    - Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to 
add?

EV> many "recents" RFC (including RFC 8200), focus on RA extensions

    - Should we add guidance on applying the content to different use cases?  
As separate docs?  Appendices?

    We’ve currently working on the -bis as a Google doc, for which there’s a 
PDF of the current snapshot available from:
    https://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIPE554-bis-v_01.pdf 

    For now, please comment to the list, and maybe start a new thread for new 
topics. 

    Tim

Reply via email to