Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness?
Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> Wed, 03 January 2024 18:55 UTC
Return-Path: <tim@qacafe.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CA3C14F71D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:55:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TxLRfP0un917 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:55:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D267C14F6A3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:55:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d3e416f303so28835715ad.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jan 2024 10:55:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; t=1704308118; x=1704912918; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OnWeTye8mn7bVH4/8hovgCdWsfbJIgSxVCh5081ledI=; b=KORUeK1CXbE+HCNp736iyEC19Do5zNDLc1WbJiD8ELnq6t9WOA8ah8LqEV6YPSFaRD W3m1ME1T+ZP4P+/IiVs7cTBdLe1/2gdPol+ntr+1io6PpeYcU2FWrYwsUBt+AnEU3ayF QmOUa3sdtJNJdm0BSSdj6lBU3swjWt4JwVCPw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704308118; x=1704912918; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=OnWeTye8mn7bVH4/8hovgCdWsfbJIgSxVCh5081ledI=; b=KUDErSN4GcavnH2KhoaDdWoQ8vcMi1+rVLOMKEU9zmWDfFV/ebvSlLXeu/s+6tcU0f vl3/V2XNsyyGGxtGcFVsQ11BRId3Kf4Ps7RpOKAVU60fjmpwciiGLcpiCge+Uv9HMrK8 pwU/ffhgnM9sDPVtqMGbISwQZRRqovjO0Rfc8W16EGnob2vBkgP+rBnk8MjUa3FtDNx5 a9LFZ2kA56m3Aq2i0dM1vy+2Sn9/bsdt1hcafe/y2HlA6jZ4Z3KFJE+R3UbCBIABNwa0 zhz1d5QRDQSK+j4v5GefCNhjphN3lFHh6heTQmyGhTe9TpAAp9fQC2Dro+Tr2mbTQxgk Oiww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwdBe/WEt7E7pJmoecCz0XR4vNWksBFjAaf0AKLbUkJFs1/rcM/ 1mN0ugb5znqNGNDssDZWJRhBIQ6EZLd2feXNcDZv6KEUhGCQsA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEnoKD8K0r60gnP7FhmruNEJdCMP3rzdOJtZ1qCXRjSNLKOtI/G5mO8oVCvG+gq+0vQAPZRdVpnROpOZRD4c3I=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1c9:b0:1d4:47d4:82b4 with SMTP id e9-20020a17090301c900b001d447d482b4mr7810153plh.15.1704308118697; Wed, 03 Jan 2024 10:55:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4f3f32c2-1823-9bb9-80ec-3774ed5fb448@gmail.com> <91919057-168C-46D3-91E4-3DE78B455CFD@jisc.ac.uk> <CAJgLMKuzEDHVWOkBV+JLg3R13a6nu5T9_ZaDYarjV0pYLiFeLQ@mail.gmail.com> <C77EDDC8-936B-4813-A779-9186E3DAAB1E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C77EDDC8-936B-4813-A779-9186E3DAAB1E@gmail.com>
From: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 13:55:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJgLMKsgz-SLBu=hUJ9h13TQkaCVA8yHuYq5xdnkehAPqdfUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, John Loughney <john.loughney@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000d334060e0f287b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ocVYh1d3C14MiWz31jP9OO4CQ_Y>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness?
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 18:55:23 -0000
Hi Bob, That has always been the challenge with this document. We'll try to get something up for IETF 119. I look forward to putting on my hard hat for the SLAAC/DHCPv6 discussion. :) ~Tim On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 1:44 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: > Tim, Tim, > > On Jan 3, 2024, at 7:04 AM, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > I remember the discussion about making this living document and > still think it's good idea. I'd be happy to use the github 6MAN location > for updating the document (https://github.com/orgs/ietf-6man/repositories) > as the location. When the time is right we could push periodic new IPv6 > node requirements. > > It looks like the years between versions have been 2006, 2011, and 2019. > So I would say putting out a version in 2024 is probably a good idea. I'm > happy to work again on this Tim C. > > > I think this is a good idea and agree given the number of potential > changes (Brian’s list of RFCs), doing it in 2024 makes sense. > > The challenge will be, of course, to not spend all of the time on a few > reoccurring issues that I don’t need to list. > > Bob > > > > ~Tim > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 1:41 AM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> >> > On 3 Jan 2024, at 02:03, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > A comment over on v6ops prompted me to wonder how many IPv6-related >> RFCs have been published since the last revision of Node Requirements (RFC >> 8504). >> >> I guess that was me. >> >> > The answer is a bit scary - see list below, based on RFC number, not on >> dates. >> > >> > The source is >> https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/20.%20Further%20Reading/RFC%20bibliography.md >> >> We did discuss at the time of RFC8504 making the draft a “living >> document” with periodic RFC publications. Perhaps we should have done >> that. >> >> If the WG feels it’s timely, I’d be happy to help pull another update >> together. I’ve explicitly copied TimW and John. And maybe this time we >> could GitHub it and keep an up-to-date md draft, something to consider. >> >> Best wishes, >> Tim >> >> > >> > Regards >> > Brian Carpenter >> > >> > Normative: >> > >> > RFC8505: Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless >> Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery >> > RFC8638: IPv4 Multicast over an IPv6 Multicast in Softwire Mesh Networks >> > RFC8676: YANG Modules for IPv4-in-IPv6 Address plus Port (A+P) Softwires >> > RFC8691: Basic Support for IPv6 Networks Operating Outside the Context >> of a Basic Service Set over IEEE Std 802.11 >> > RFC8754: IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) >> > RFC8781: Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements >> > RFC8883: ICMPv6 Errors for Discarding Packets Due to Processing Limits >> > RFC8925: IPv6-Only Preferred Option for DHCPv4 >> > RFC8929: IPv6 Backbone Router >> > RFC8930: On Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multi-Hop IPv6 Network >> > RFC8931: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) >> Selective Fragment Recovery >> > RFC8950: Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) >> with an IPv6 Next Hop >> > RFC8956: Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6 >> > RFC8981: Temporary Address Extensions for Stateless Address >> Autoconfiguration in IPv6 >> > RFC8983: Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Notification >> Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence >> > RFC8986: Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming >> > RFC9008: Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes, and >> IPv6-in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane >> > RFC9034: Packet Delivery Deadline Time in the Routing Header for IPv6 >> over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) >> > RFC9131: Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries >> on First-Hop Routers >> > RFC9159: IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy Using the Internet >> Protocol Support Profile (IPSP) >> > RFC9164: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for IPv4 and >> IPv6 Addresses and Prefixes >> > RFC9252: BGP Overlay Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) >> > RFC9259: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment >> Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) >> > RFC9343: IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method >> > RFC9352: IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over the IPv6 Data >> Plane >> > RFC9354: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Power Line Communication >> (PLC) Networks >> > RFC9428: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication >> > RFC9486: IPv6 Options for In Situ Operations, Administration, and >> Maintenance (IOAM) >> > RFC9487: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow >> Information Export (IPFIX) >> > RFC9513: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) >> > RFC9514: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for >> Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) >> > >> > RFC9096 (BCP234): Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to >> IPv6 Renumbering Events >> > >> > Informational: >> > >> > RFC8585: Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support >> IPv4-as-a-Service >> > RFC8678: Enterprise Multihoming using Provider-Assigned IPv6 Addresses >> without Network Prefix Translation: Requirements and Solutions >> > RFC8683: Additional Deployment Guidelines for NAT64/464XLAT in Operator >> and Enterprise Networks >> > RFC8978: Reaction of IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) >> to Flash-Renumbering Events >> > RFC8992: Autonomic IPv6 Edge Prefix Management in Large-Scale Networks >> > RFC9030: An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping >> Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH) >> > RFC9098: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers >> > RFC9099: Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks >> > RFC9288: Recommendations on the Filtering of IPv6 Packets Containing >> IPv6 Extension Headers at Transit Routers >> > RFC9313: Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for >> IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) >> > RFC9365: IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): >> Problem Statement and Use Cases >> > RFC9386: IPv6 Deployment Status >> > RFC9433: Segment Routing over IPv6 for the Mobile User Plane >> > RFC9453: Applicability and Use Cases for IPv6 over Networks of >> Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) >> > >> > Experimental: >> > >> > RFC8885: Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions for Distributed Mobility >> Management >> > RFC9229: IPv4 Routes with an IPv6 Next Hop in the Babel Routing Protocol >> > RFC9268: IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> > ipv6@ietf.org >> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
- [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Timothy Winters
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Bob Hinden
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Timothy Winters
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Bob Hinden
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Timothy Winters
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Bob Hinden
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Michael Richardson
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? john.loughney@gmail.com
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Nick Buraglio
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness? Tim Chown