On Oct 2, 2017 03:09, "Eliot Lear" <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hmm. Begins to seem like a good fit for the shepherd write-up, though...
And requires much less BCP twiddling ...
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 may not have said this clearly, but Stephen said what I'm trying to say.
Not mandatory for all RFCs, only the ones that need it.
Spencer
>
> 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.
>