I agree. Most systems are agnostic to the network-layer protocol. For the
few that are not, it still seems that this is an implementation detail that
would be of concern only later in the proposal's development.
Requirements should deal with higher-level system goals, design objectives,
and constraints.
The spirit of the IPv6 question seems to be captured in the current
requirements draft by the goals around interoperability and ease of
deployment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:46 AM
To: ASRG list
Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg]
Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record)
Folks,
YS> This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support
be part of
YS> the requirements?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I think this is
like saying that ethernet and ppp dial-up support should be
part of the requirements.
In other words, we are working at too high a level for the
choice of networking-level protocol to be relevant.
However, if anyone can explain how IPv6 details are relevant
to Internet email-related spam control mechanisms, please do.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg