Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The node requirements document, despite its misleading title, is > INFORMATIONAL. It does not represent IETF consensus, so even if the > document would say every IPv6 node MUST implement IPsec, it would mean > basically nothing.
You may be correct in a narrow, legalistic sense. In practice, however, saying that the document carries no weight is simply not true. The facts speak otherwise. When people look around for guidance on what to implement, they do in fact refer to the IPv6 Node Requirements RFC. Even though it is only informational and (supposedly) carries "no weight", people do in fact defer to it when they are unsure of what to do. Consider the USG IPv6 profiles. DoD (via JITC) has issued profiles. (See http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6.html). NIST is also close to finalizing profiles (see http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/). These will be mandatory (in a MUST sense) for products sold to USG. Both profiles relied heavily on the recommendations of RFC 4294. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
