It is perhaps selfish of me to really want active queue management, of some form, as part of specifications for new equipment.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7567/ On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 7:38 AM Tim Chown via ipv6-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > Many thanks for your comments, we’ve updated the ‘living draft’ at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/10HsfHDOIhUPIvGk9WP0azJiIsMVzQ49RsqWfnbNtceI/edit# > And attached as PDF. > > In-line... > > > On 5 Nov 2021, at 07:52, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Tim*2, Sander, Jan, and Merike, > > > > First of all, thank you for taking the pen to update this document. As you > > kindly asked for comments, here are some > > - page 2: 'fairly recent' won't age well ;-) > > Removed. > > > - page 4: all requirements are limited to performance, but should it also > > include telemetry/monitoring ? Or is it implicit in the list of RFC ? > > Agreed - we added mention of capabilities in a couple of places. > > > - page 4: what about systems to handle VMs and containers ? > > Out of scope. > > > - page 4: mobile devices have a *big difference* with normal host though as > > they often have multiple interfaces active at the same time. > > True, but out of scope. The document is about their connectivity to the > enterprise infrastructure. We could note this, but currently do not. > > > - page 4: should we assume that Wi-Fi access points are 'normal layer-2 > > switches' ? > > Added text to say consider as L2 consumer switch, see Section 3.1. > > > - page 6: I am surprised to see RFC 8415 DHCPv6 client as mandatory… > > Fair comment, as this could be something contentious. The only way we can > think to avoid that is to include the DHCPv6 requirements conditionally, ie. > “IF you need DHCPv6 then…” those requirements are required. So networks > deploying with just RA for address configuration can avoid that. > > > - page 6: if not mistaken RFC 8200 now includes RFC 5722 and RFC 8021 (so > > no need to add the latter in the requirements) > > Deleted 5722 and 8021. > > > - page 7: same surprise to see all DHCP-related requirements > > Also made into an “If DHCPv6 is needed then” > > > - page 7 and other: nice to list some MIB but I would expect some YANG > > modules as well for enterprise/ISP devices > > RFC8504 covers this in16.2, should we say the same words here, as optional in > each section? > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8504#section-16.2 > Thoughts? > > > - page 9: should Jen's RFC 9131 be added as optional ? > > Can do, in which sections? Presumably 4.1 and 4.4? > > Best wishes, > Tim > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg -- I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
