Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Frank,

On 2011-08-23 00:09, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Nothing is wrong in BCP 104, it needs no "updated by" moving the definition
> of the term "version support" from one of its sections to another section.

But there *is* something wrong with it - it makes IPv6 sound
like an optional add-on to basic IP service.

I thought this was a bug in BCP 104 at the time, and told the
author so, but lost that argument. That was reasonable in
2004/5, but things have moved on. Then, an ISP could argue that
providing IPv6 service was difficult or impossible; today, that
excuse is weak.

On 2011-08-23 07:44, George, Wesley wrote:

> Brian was the one who originally suggested this RFC be added as updated by this draft, so I'm keen to hear his opinion as well.

Well, I'm not sure there is much point in wordsmithing BCP 104
beyond simply moving version support up into first class, but I
am completely convinced that should be done.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]