Re: [IPv6] Node requirements freshness?

I was thinking the same thing Bob. Initially, we started this work to give
guidance and clarity for what needed to be done to be an IPv6 "node" - so I
think IETF consensus is the right approach.

John

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024, 10:58 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Perhaps the focus of the work should be to add things where there is an
> agreed IETF consensus documented in a published RFC.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2024, at 10:55 AM, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>