Re: Updates to RFC6434

Hi Fred,

We can add this topic to the list of things to be raised in the Singapore meeting.

If anyone else has strong view on this, please do shout now though.

Tim 

> On 30 Oct 2017, at 20:46, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I believe it should be cited in the introduction in the same way as
> RFC8200 cites RFC791.
> 
> Fred
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim Chown [mailto:Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 1:28 PM
>> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
>> Cc: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: Updates to RFC6434
>> 
>> That was a ‘could’; I think we subsequently agreed it wasn’t necessary, for the reason Tim mentioned?
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> On 30 Oct 2017, at 20:06, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Tim,
>>> 
>>> I am referring to Tim Chown’s proposed resolution to my original comment:
>>> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg28394.html
>>> 
>>> Tim’s proposal was to cite RFC1122 in the intro, which I agree would be
>>> appropriate.
>>> 
>>> Thanks - Fred
>>> 
>>> From: Timothy Winters [mailto:twinters@iol.unh.edu]
>>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 12:46 PM
>>> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
>>> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Updates to RFC6434
>>> 
>>> Hi Fred,
>>> 
>>> I thought we decided we didn't want to point to the historic IPv4 text in that.  Can you remind me were you wanted that text?
>>> 
>>> ~Tim
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>>> We talked about adding an informative reference to RFC1122. Can
>>> you please add that?
>>> 
>>> Fred
>>> 
>>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Winters
>>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 6:43 AM
>>> To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: Updates to RFC6434
>>> 
>>> We have posted an updated version of 6434bis, with the following changes since Prague:
>>> 	• Text on EH processing
>>> 	• Noted that RFC4191 is a MUST, but a SHOULD for Type C node
>>> 	• Updated RFC references (8200, 8201, 8221, 8247)
>>> 	• Added note on RFC 7772 for power consumption
>>> 	• Added ‘Why /64?’ reference; RFC 7421
>>> 	• Removed jumbogram text
>>> 	• Added reference to draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
>>> 	• For 3GPP, added ‘snapshot’ comment on RFC7066
>>> 	• Added RFC8028 as a SHOULD (for Section 5.5 from RFC 6724)
>>> 	• Removed ATM over IPv6
>>> 	• Added reference to RFC8064
>>> 	• Added MUST for BCP 198, and ref to draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
>>> 	• Added text on avoiding 1280 MTU for UDP (inc. DNS) traffic
>>> We'll be sending some additional questions to the list later this week to hopefully get this document ready for working group last
>> call.
>>> 
>>> ~Tim, Tim and John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>> Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:36 AM
>>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt
>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance WG of the IETF.
>>> 
>>>        Title           : IPv6 Node Requirements
>>>        Authors         : Tim Chown
>>>                          John Loughney
>>>                          Timothy Winters
>>>        Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt
>>>        Pages           : 40
>>>        Date            : 2017-10-30
>>> 
>>> Abstract:
>>>   This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
>>>   that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
>>>   Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
>>>   well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
>>>   deployments.
>>> 
>>>   This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis/
>>> 
>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02
>>> 
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>> 
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 