On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:31 AM Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
It's an and, not an or. Additionally useful treatments of the ipv6 flow header, and the diffserv & ecn bits, the ability to shape or police traffic, would be nice to have in a document that talks to the properties of switches and routers. > 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 > -- 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
