Hmm. Begins to seem like a good fit for the shepherd write-up, though... Eliot On 10/2/17 9:54 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > 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