Hi all, If people feel that further disclaimers are needed in the current bis draft to ensure that people understand that it only meant as an informative compendium, then I am happy to add that extra text.
John >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of ext Brian Haberman >Sent: 26 February, 2008 06:27 >To: ipv6@ietf.org >Subject: Re: the role of the node "requirements" document > >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.tx >> t >> >> 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 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
