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 claims " Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the Internet Protocol suite by itself. " IPv4 is a phenomenal success, and RFC1122 is a key part of that. IPv4 was a confused jumble, as IPv6 is now, and RFC1122, with another two or so I-Ds, cut through the cruft and rendered it usable. IPv6 desparately needs an equivalent to RFC1122, as a trawl of the v6ops list archives shows, and clearly this I-D is never going to be it, but claiming that this I-D provides an update to RFC1122, coupled with its title, gives the message that there is not going to be such an I-D; IPv6 will remain a confused jumble (and so is unlikely ever to emulate the success of IPv4). Bin it. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf