Am 2011-08-23 01:03, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
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.
This is a very important BCP. It is about non-Internet providers claiming to be ISPs while favouring packets by IP or manipulating DNS. Not offering IPv6 in 2011 also isn't nice, but if the latter requires new text it should be in a new BCP. While at it the new BCP could reference 4409bis instead of RFC 2476. Getting an "updated by" only as some kind of IPv6 promotion would IMHO not help with the main purpose of this BCP. -Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf