Hi Dave, > On 23 Nov 2021, at 16:09, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/
I would agree, but this doc is IPv6 requirements, while the RFC is generally applicable to v4 or v6? Tim > > 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
