tnx (I wondered if my review had black holed) Scott > On Jul 11, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Timothy Winters <twinters@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
