I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4 is
fine, the sort of statement that the IAB should make, or have made, as an RFC or
in some other form.
But this I-D c
From: "t.petch"
To:
Reply-to: daedu...@btconnect.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: (IPv6Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
WEG] well, I find the
> I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
> Internet to publish it.
This seems a little ... extreme. The document appears to me to be Mostly
Harmless, with all that implies.
> The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4
> is
+1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
go defensive - it isn't saying "IPv4 is evil" or anything silly
like that, it's just saying "IPv6 is the future".
RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't ready
for it yet, but draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is a step on
On 22 Aug 2011, at 23:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> +1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
> go defensive - it isn't saying "IPv4 is evil" or anything silly
> like that, it's just saying "IPv6 is the future".
>
> RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't r
This document really wants to be a BCP that makes deployment and strategy
recommendations. But for some reason it has been disguised as a standards
track document (i.e., as a protocol specification), and the result is that
RFC 2119 language is being used in a very peculiar way. I think this is
wh
inline
- Original Message -
From: "George, Wesley"
To: ; "t.petch"
Cc:
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 7:12 PM
From: "t.petch"
To:
Reply-to: daedu...@btconnect.com
I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
WEG] wel
