Re: draft-kawamura-ipv6-isp-listings review

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

On 2010-07-16 03:19, Fred Baker wrote:
> Could I interest you in doing a thorough review of draft-kawamura-ipv6-isp-listings and commenting to v6ops?

Summary
-------

This short draft proposes guidelines for use by listing sites that report on
the level of IPv6 support from various ISPs. There are a number of such
sites, and they don't all report on the same criteria, so the draft proposes
seven common criteria, split into 'basic' and 'advanced'.

I believe this document is useful, but it needs some debate about the exact
criteria proposed, and it needs discussion with the people operating
existing listing sites. If they don't agree, the document is going nowhere.

More detail
-----------

It seems like a good idea for all these listing sites to use common criteria.
Whether they would do so in practice is another question. (How many ISPs
do you know who refer to RFC 4084 in their sales literature?) That's why
the sites need to be involved in the discussion.

The list of criteria needs some debate in the WG. For example, there is
no check whether IPv6-only clients would be satisfied. So as it stands,
an ISP could get a green light according to this draft, but its IPv6-only
users couldn't get SMTP service (for example). On the other hand, for
practical reasons, there should not be too many criteria.

There's no security text. There needs to be something if this is to proceed
as an RFC. We could discuss whether any security-related criteria should
be added; if not, we need to say why not.

The draft is short enough that there's no point in a section-by-section
review. There are a few places where the RFC Editor would need to tidy up
the English.

   Brian Carpenter