On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Fred Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > In preceding recommendations, the format of the document is to state a > recommendation and follow it with an explanatory note. > > Which brings me to this suggestion: > > /* > * suggestion > */ > REC-13: > Residential Internet Gateways SHOULD provide a convenient means to securely > update their firmware, for the installation of security patches and other > manufacturer-recommended changes. > > Vendors can expect users and operators to have differing viewpoints on the > maintenance of patches, with some preferring automated update and some > preferring manual initiation, and those preferring automated update wanting > to download from a vendor site or one managed by the network operator. To > handle the disparity, vendors are well advised if they provide manual and > automated options. In the automated case, they would do well to facilitate > pre-configuration of the download URL and a means of validating the software > image such as a certificate. > /* > * end of suggestion > */ > > Opinions?
Covers both cases and explains the situation well. Looks good. Sam -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
