Hi Scott,
Thanks for the review. The name of the network management section has been updated, I think that's technically a better name.
The working group discussed the SHOULD and based on feedback thought that this should be a MAY.
Regards,
Tim
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:36 AM Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Ready
This is an OPS-DIR review of IPv6 Node Requirements
(draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08).
This document is a compendium of what RFCs need to be implemented or paid
attention to if someone wants to make a fully operational IPv6 node. The
document shows quite clearly that making such a node is a lot of work - i.e..,
there are a lot of RFCs listed - gone are the days when implementing an
Internet node involved less documentation than implementing an OSI GOSSIP node.
All of the changes listed in the two "changes from" sections seem very
reasonable.
Relative to the OPS area, there is a "Network Management" section that does a
good job of listing the possible management technologies to implement. I do
not know why the section is called "network management" since the document is
about nodes not networks (it would be better called "IPv6 Node Management")
I'm also not sure why management is a MAY - seems to me that it should be a
SHOULD (a MUST unless you have a good reason not to) - deploying new IPv6 nodes
that are immune to management does not seem like a good idea these days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
