RE: Updates to RFC6434

Tim,

Consider also as a second example that RFC4861, section 3.1 gives
a "Comparison with IPv4", including citations of RFC826 and other
relevant IPv4 RFCs.

Whereas RFC8200 and RFC4861 have multiple paragraphs, however,
I think rfc6434(bis) can make do with s single sentence near the
beginning as for RFC8200.

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 4:32 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
> 
> 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
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >