On 2007-12-06 03:33, Thomas Narten 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?
Yes. The published RFC was already "old" by the time it gotten
published because it had been on hold for reference dependencies for
so long....
+1, and *additionally* it would be really valuable to have a
continuously maintained HTMLised version - unofficial, but
current - since we'll never be able to keep the RFC 100% current.
Brian
The USG (via NIST and DoD) have IPv6 profiles that are heavily based
on the Node Requirements RFC. I think there are places where we should
clarify existing language, based on the experience people have had in
using RFC 4294.
2) If there is interest, what should be update look like:
a) Simple update, covering just the updates in the base RFCs.
Let's keep things small and focused, please. Just update the Node
Requirements RFC. Note: we can always update it again later!
To be useful, the published RFC needs to be up-to-date. I'd aim for
getting the revisions done by summer of next year (i.e., around summer
meeting time).
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
