Am 2011-08-23 01:03, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
Nothing is wrong in BCP 104, it needs no "updated by" moving the definition
of the term "version support" from one of its sections to another section.
But there *is* something wrong with it - it makes IPv6 sound
like an optional add-on to basic IP service.
I thought this was a bug in BCP 104 at the time, and told the
author so, but lost that argument. That was reasonable in
2004/5, but things have moved on. Then, an ISP could argue that
providing IPv6 service was difficult or impossible; today, that
excuse is weak.
This is a very important BCP. It is about non-Internet providers
claiming to be ISPs while favouring packets by IP or manipulating
DNS. Not offering IPv6 in 2011 also isn't nice, but if the latter
requires new text it should be in a new BCP. While at it the new
BCP could reference 4409bis instead of RFC 2476.
Getting an "updated by" only as some kind of IPv6 promotion would
IMHO not help with the main purpose of this BCP.
-Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf