Thanks, Brian, inline
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 12:33:42PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Interstingly, RFC8504 is no update to anything.
> It obsoletes RFC6434, however.
I stand corrected. I meant none of the normative RFC, aka: not just prior
versions of itself.
> The text frequently says things like "As per RFC 8200..." so yes,
> there is an element of clarification.
> IMHO, implementing IPv6 without consulting the Node Requirements
> document would be pretty bad engineering practice, like implementing
> an IPv4 router without consulting RFC 1812.
Or actually rfc1122, which i just stumbled across updating rfc1112
> > This is why i am confused.
>
> I don't see the confusion. If you implement IPv4 based only
> on RFC 791, RFC1349, RFC2474 and RFC6864, I doubt that your
> code would be much use either. You have to fit in the ecosystem.
Sure. I am confused about the rules when something is and when something
is not an update.
> > Or else 8504 is not declared an update because it would be an update
> > to so many RFCs, and by making it BCP it's wiggling out of that
> > responsibility. Which would be weird too.
>
> It isn't supposed to change the definition of any protocol element,
> so it doesn't normatively update anything.
>
> > Right, but what if there are then possibly RFC8995 impleemnations
> > out there that aren't doing that and would then be non-interoperable
> > with a new impleemntation that does follow the considerations text ?
>
> That is true. Interop is more than just supporting PDU formats.
So lets assume you could implement IPv6 compliant with RFC8200
without observing RFC8504 (or its predecessors), but that implementation
would not necessarily interoperate with other RFC8200 implementation which
where build observing RFC8504 (or its predecessors).
But: assuming this is the case, it would still be perfectly valid not to
call RFC8504 an update to RFC8200 because ....
RFC8504 does not explicitly change any BCP14 language from RFC8200
And it wiggles itself out of being caught in contributing additional
BCP14 language by simply not using BCP14 language for any clarification
it does ???
And that's the way we define "not an update" ?
And that's a good thing ???
I reserve to continue being confused ;-))
Cheers
Toerless
> > > With BCP we can use or not use BCP14 language, and I suggest we decide
> > > that
> > > part later.
> >
> > BCP14 language seems to be possible in whatever RFC you write i fear.
>
> There is a strong argument against allowing it in Informational or
> Experimental RFCs, but that's never been a rule, afaik.
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Toerless
> >
> > > --
> > > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> > > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
