Re: I-D Action: draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

As discussed at IETF96, Tim, John and I have posted a (quite rough) RFC6434-bis -00 draft.

The body of this -00 text is unchanged from RFC6434, with the exception that the author and acknowledgment text has been updated.

We have discussed potential changes, and reviewed 6MAN publications since RFC6434 was published.

Rather than editing the RFC6434 text, we have instead added a number of “comments" in the new -00 text delimited by 

**BIS …blah blah… ** 

in standalone paragraphs which loosely describe the changes that we think could be made, with the idea of getting some initial high level feedback and consensus on those potential changes. We will refine the “comments" into real changes to the body of the text in a future version, assuming we can see that the changes have consensus, or at least no objections.

At this stage, what would be useful is review of the appropriateness of the “comments”, and suggestions for any further things to be added, changed, or removed, if only at a high level at this point, though suggested document text is always welcome.

We’ve requested a short slot in Seoul to move the work forward.

Tim 

> On 31 Oct 2016, at 15:05, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
>        Title           : IPv6 Node Requirements
>        Authors         : Tim Chown
>                          John Loughney
>                          Tim Winters
> 	Filename        : draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 34
> 	Date            : 2016-10-31
> 
> 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.
> 
>   NB.  This is a first -00 version of the update to RFC 6434.  We have
>   not yet edited original text from RFC 6434 apart from the author and
>   acknowledgement texts, which carry forward from the older versions.
> 
>   We have indicated intended changes (additions, updates or deletion of
>   text at a high level in the sections below with text delimited by
>   **BIS ... ** comments, e.g.
> 
>   **BIS Add discussion of the impact of RFC xxxx **
> 
>   **BIS Update reference of RFC 3484 and note new address selection
>   implications**
> 
>   etc.  These will become edits in future versions once the substance
>   of the changes is agreed.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis/
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt