On 25 Sep 2014, at 16:52, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/25/2014 12:38 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> >> In every statement where an existing IPv6 required capability is changed. >> >> E.g.: >> - demotes requirements to "SHOULDS" (most x.x.x.5 sections). > > They are lowercase shoulds. And not protocol changes, but operational > advice. > >> - deprecates the flags in HBH options intended to declare how an option >> is handled when not known by providing advice specific to each option >> type that does not consider the flag setting > > The advice in this I-D essentially mimics RFC7045 for options. That was > the intent. Am I missing something? Hi, I would say that putting forward operational recommendations in a style similar to RFC4890, which does not use RFC2119 language, is both appropriate and useful. I agree that were there specific protocol changes then of course these should be run through 6man (most likely) to update existing RFCs. There are many drafts that fall between v6ops and opsec, where the scope is IPv6 operational security practices. Tim _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
