Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Russ,
On 20/01/2018 13:51, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I think that's the problem.

Just to restore a little context, Lorenzo wrote that in response to something I said:

>>> Lorenzo, are you saying that the requirements in this draft need to be
>>> scoped? That doesn't sound unreasonable, but if so, what would the
>>> scoping text look like?

<snip>

> The basic question comes down to this: Does the WG think building a basic set of requirements "pretty much" _all_ IPv6 routers should run a worthwhile concept, 

a) I think you mean "should be able to run if needed, must be configurable on/off".
b) If you can provide scoping text that defines which routers are covered, rather than a generalisation like "pretty much all", we could stop arguing.

> or -- is it that there are always going to be too many corner cases we can think of, too many exceptions to try to account for, to make this useful work? In other words, can we hope for an actual set of base IPv6 features with which to create an interoperable network, or is everything, always, going to be a "one off?"

All IETF standards are voluntary, so we can never get away from the corner cases and exceptions. IMHO the best we can do is as above: define scope, define recommendations, require configurability.

   Brian

    Brian