rather like IANA considerations.
Lloyd Wood
Lloyd Wood
lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Monday, October 2, 2017, 6:54 pm, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 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.