I support publication of some document like this one. Suggestions for
clarification to this document:
1. (section 2 in general) I think it's vague for this document to claim that it
"updates" earlier documents as if it's changing the text of those documents.
The reader is left with only a vague impression of what is still in place from
those documents and what has changed.
I suggest that the language in this draft be changed to first state each new or
revised requirement, and then state how this changes
recommendations/requirements stated in earlier documents.
2. section 2, page 4 reads:
implementation details. Rather, it is intended to ensure that those
using RFC1812 as a guideline for IP implementations understand that
IP nodes SHOULD NOT support IPv4 only, and that they should use the
other informative references in this document as a companion
guideline for proper IPv6 implementations.
suggest instead:
implementation details. Rather, it is intended to ensure that those
using RFC1812 as a guideline for IP implementations understand that
IP nodes SHOULD support IPv6 in addition to any support provided for
IPv4, and that they should use the other informative references in
this document as a companion guideline for proper IPv6 implementations.
reason: to me "SHOULD NOT support IPv4 only" seems potentially confusing.
3. section 2, page 5 reads:
New IP implementations MUST support IPv6.
Current IP implementations SHOULD support IPv6.
In general, it's meaningless to impose a requirement on current implementations
of anything. Also, it's not clear what is meant by "new implementations" -
does this mean completely new implementations, or revisions of existing
implementations?
Suggest that this be restated. e.g. "Host and router IP implementations MUST
support IPv6; to support only IPv4 is insufficient."
4. also section 2, page 5:
IPv6 support MUST be equivalent or better in quality and
functionality when compared to IPv4 support in an IP
implementation.
This statement could be taken too broadly, e.g. as applying to service
offerings rather than just host and router implementations. Suggest instead:
Support for the IPv6 protocol in hosts and routers MUST
be equivalent or better in quality and functionality when
compared to IPv4 support in the same products.
Even then, this strikes me as problematic. Should an implementation that
cannot provide support for every IPv6 feature (perhaps because of inherent
differences between IPv4 and IPv6, or because some feature hasn't yet been
updated to support IPv6) be expected to remove features from its IPv4 stack so
that its IPv6 stack is "equivalent or better"?
At the very least, I think the MUST should be a SHOULD.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf