On 02/10/17 08:43, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > We should also remember that the community has been more resistant to > adding mandatory sections to all RFCs in recent years, so, there's that. I don't think an IPv4 Considerations section is a good idea. Unlike security considerations, it should be almost always empty and so it would just be more bureaucratic boilerplate, and hence a bad idea. I also had a read of the document itself and agree with the comments that the tone is wrong. To add one more example, the opening sentence of section 1 says "The IETF has developed IPv6 to replace IPv4." I agree that is a true statement. However it is also pretty misleading as I believe many IETF participants do not now believe that IPv6 will replace all IPv4 traffic in say the next two decades. I do however agree that we ought stop adding features to IPv4 that don't work for IPv6, but the text of the statement needs significant work still. S.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature