Subject: implementation report for rfc2462bis

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 01:21:55 +0900

Hello,

I just noticed you recorded the following comment on
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-07.txt in the IESG review:

> 1. No updated implementation report; I'd like to see reporting in
>    there of the basis for the dropping of the Managed bit, which is
>    stated in the draft as an implementation result.  It's a good
>    simplification, it sounds like, but documenting this in the report
>    would be good.

>    Didn't the reading of 2026 come out updated implementation reports
>    for recycling DS's?

We surely planned to collect implementation reports for recycling this
specification as a DS, but we (or at least I as a document editor) had
no idea about who/how/when.  According to Section 4.1.2 of RFC2026,
however, we should probably have made the report before submitting the
document to the IESG.  (BTW: did we make implementation reports before
submitting ICMPv6-v3 to the IESG, which is also to be recycled as a
DS?)

In any event, if we need to make an implementation report for IESG
approval, I believe we can start the process right now.  I hope chairs
provide some guidance on this (e.g., who should be responsible for
this, how to do it, etc).

One specific question of mine regarding the M (and O) flag is that how
we can relate the document change to the implementation report.  If we
follow the same content when RFC2462 (and 2461) became a DS:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/nd-auto-implementations.txt

it would only concern a very rough level of specification features,
i.e., per ICMP message type basis (NS/NA/RS/RA/Redirect).  It would
even not directly mention "address autoconfiguration" or "duplicate
address detection".  Can this report keep the same level of details
while talking about specific flags in a particular message type?  Or,
are we now required the same level of detailed reports on every small
portion of the specification?  If the latter is the case, which level
are we required?  Regarding the M/O flags, what kind of report are we
expected to make?  This would support the decision of moving the
details of these flags to another document, so it would somehow be a
"negative" report, e.g., "we've asked for implementation reports, but
no one answered or we've not found any interoperability test results,
etc".  Is this what we are expected to do?

I have no idea on these questions.  I hope someone who is more
familiar with the procedure can enlighten me.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------