ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

2011-08-20 18:50:19
Hi Subramanian,

I think most of your comments will be dealt with by
wordsmithing,  but...

On 2011-08-21 06:11, SM wrote:
...
From Section 2:

  'Updates [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4 which use the
   generic "IP" synonymously with the more specific "IPv4."  Since
   RFC1812 is an IPv4 router specification, the generic use of IP in
   this standard may cause confusion as IP is redefined to mean IPv4 +
   IPv6.'

The title of RFC 1812 is "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers".  The
update proposed in this draft causes even more confusion as it is
unclear what text is being updated in RFC 1812.

It't quite clear to me, but we could spell it out: s/IP/IPv4/.

  'Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in
   section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic
   term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the
   Internet Protocol suite by itself.'

This second update is again confusing as text does not get updated "for
example".  As the intended status of this draft is Proposed Standard,
there is a presumption that if it is going to update STD 3, it will do
so clearly.

Ditto.

  'Updates [RFC4084] to move "Version Support" from Section 4,
   "Additional Terminology" to Section 2, "General Terminology." This
   is to reflect the idea that version support is now critical to
   defining the types of IP service, especially with respect to Full
   Internet Connectivity."

I don't consider this as a valid reason to update BCP 104.  The
"document provides a list of terms and definitions that may be helpful
to providers, consumers, and, potentially, regulators in clarifying the
type and character of services being offered".  Moving version support
from Section 4 to Section 2 does not make the document more helpful.  

Yes it does. It clarifies, for consumer organizations for
example, the IPv6 is not additional technology but is part of
any general IP service.

I
get blank stares when I ask about "IP dresses".  I have yet to find out
what will happen when I ask about "IP sex dresses".

Seriously, BCPs, in general, are about what's happening in the wild and
not IETF wishful thinking.  

They are about the best practices that the IETF wishes were
being used in the wild.

If you are going to take a RFC written for a
wider audience and stick an "Updated by" into it, the reader might not
see the change.

Of course - we have that problem every time we update any RFC.
It is quite orthogonal to the question whether we *should*
update the RFC.


  "Rather than update the existing IPv4 protocol specification standards
   to include IPv6, IETF has defined a completely separate set of
   standalone documents which cover IPv6."

Was there a reason for that?

Yes. Because IPv4 has no address extensibility, it was
impossible to update it for larger addresses. That has been
known since 1981 or thereabouts.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>