Hemant,
Take a look at the category for RFC 4294 at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4294. It is Informational and no
discussion has occurred to change that classification for this update.
Regards,
Brian
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Pekka,
>
> The node requirement draft as I read it from
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-01.txt
>
> is on Standards Track. Did I miss anything because you think this node
> requirement doc is an INFORMATIONAL draft?
>
> As for IPSec and IPv6, indeed it is true that IPSec is mandatory for
> IPv6, unlike IPv4. If one wants an RFC reference that says IPSec is
> mandatory for IPv6, please refer to RFC 2401 or RFC 4301 (Security
> Architecture for the Internet Protocol). Snipped from the RFC's is
> section 10 shown below between square brackets.
>
> [10. Conformance Requirements
>
> All IPv4 systems that claim to implement IPsec MUST comply with all
> requirements of the Security Architecture document. All IPv6 systems
> MUST comply with all requirements of the Security Architecture
> document.]
>
> I totally appreciate Alain's concern for cable modem devices with
> limited memory for IPv6 but the problem is that IPv6 community decided
> as far back as 1998 with RFC 2401 that IPSec is mandatory for IPv6.
> Cable IPv6 standards came much later. We will have to see what common
> ground can be met to address Alain's concern.
>
> Hemant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Pekka Savola
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:05 AM
> To: Alain Durand
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Fred Baker (fred)
> Subject: the role of the node "requirements" document
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Alain Durand wrote:
>> The problem is that some of those devices have really limited memory
>> and they already do (too?) many things, so there is no room left...
>> Some vendors had to go back at their code and spend a lot of time and
>> effort to clean things up to make room for the very basic IPv6 code,
> so every kb count.
>> The whole idea of asking them to do extra efforts to implement a
>> functionality that is not needed and that will introduce bugs &
>> instability is not very appealing.
>>
>> Again, this last argument applies also to devices that do not have
>> memory
>> problems: if I do not need functionality X, I'd rather like not to
>> have it implemented as it will lower the operational risks.
>
> I think this discussion somewhat misses the point because some folks
> feel informational roadmap documents have more weight than they actually
> do (according to IETF procedures, or even in practice in vendors'
> feature planning). (E.g., there was similar discussion about
> RFC4614.)
>
> The node requirements document, despite its misleading title, is
> INFORMATIONAL. It does not represent IETF consensus, so even if the
> document would say every IPv6 node MUST implement IPsec, it would mean
> basically nothing.
>
> Where is a Standards Track or BCP document that says IPsec is mandatory?
>
> If vendors need to make tradeoffs of what they implement or don't
> implement, that's their call. They can't call that product to be
> "RFC4294 compliant", "RFC4301 compliant", claim it supports IPsec, or
> claim it's "RFCxxxx" compliant (where xxxx corresponds to an RFC number
> which mandates IPsec). That's all.
>
> The product also might not get IPv6 ready logo certifications and such,
> but that's not IETF's business anyway.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
