On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Quite a few RFCs have been updated since the IPv6 Node Requirements
document
was published. Is there interest in updating the IPv6 Node
Requirements doc?
Which updates are we thinking about here? Documents which have
Obsoleted (in the RFC editor's registry) old ones? The implementors
(or the customers that write RFPs for them) are smart enough to figure
this out themselves.
So, why would updating the RFC be useful, given that the running code
of the IETF is to let the documents gather enough dust.. and then let
them rot because they've become too dusty to be revived.
Don't we have better things to spend our cycles, i.e., things that are
actually broken (e.g., RFC3484 issues) instead of just updating
obsoleted RFC numbers?
Unless there is clear justification why just updating a couple of RFC
numbers would be beneficial, we should probably either:
a) forget about the update or
b) consider a more throrough process including obtaining IETF
Consensus on what the IPv6 node requirements really are (make it BCP
or standards track).
I think b) is what USG is using this document for even though it
currently doesn't have any IETF consensus behind it (it's just an
informative list of some RFCs somewhat related to IPv6).
Some might say the current state is somewhat problematical and making
a superficial update without fixing the root problems could make the
matter even worse.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
