----- Original Message ----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
> To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarik...@ieee.org>
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 9:34:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal to change status of RFC 4038
>
> Behcet,
>
> You're still not giving any *reasons* why this should be a BCP.
> The IETF doesn't standardise implementations, or even APIs,
> so I don't see why we would make this a normative document.
I looked briefly at previous BCPs, I think that 4038 is very much inline with
the BCP spirit. Maybe we should change the title from:
Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition
to
Transistioning Applications to IPv6.
then this would go well inline with BCPs like selecting and operating secondary
DNS servers, and so on.
This is my reply to Brian H.'s question What changes would go into the document?
>
> Getting a good library out under the BSD license would do a lot
> more than SHOULDs and MUSTs in an RFC, imho.
I saw some BCPs that contain code.
To this point: What limitations are people seeing from it being an
Informational RFC?
I think it would give a good boost to IPv6 migration that is currently under
way much more than when this RFC was published, i.e. about four-five years ago.
Regards,
Behcet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
