Subject: Elevation to Full Standard

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 06:33:42 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Folks,
   I think the node requirements document needs to be advanced as well 
before we should move the base specs to Full Standard as one cannot easily 
figure out what she/he should do to be IPv6 compliant. e.g. If I implement 
just RFC2460 and not RFC2461 and RFC2462 am I still compliant?

Cheers
Suresh

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

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 06:48:44 -0400

Hi Suresh,

On Aug 3, 2005, at 6:33, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> before we should move the base specs to Full Standard as one cannot 
> easily figure out what she/he should do to be IPv6 compliant. e.g. If 
> I implement just RFC2460 and not RFC2461 and RFC2462 am I still 
> compliant?
>

Just so everyone is aware, the node requirements spec has been in
the RFC Editor's Queue for quite some time.  It is held up on
normative references to specs outside of the IPv6 WG control (security
drafts).

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 04:22:50 -0700

>> easily figure out what she/he should do to be IPv6 compliant. e.g. If I 
>> implement just RFC2460 and not RFC2461 and RFC2462 am I still compliant?
>

Further, all of the normative references are now in the RFC-Editor queue so 
it's not waiting for some other work to be completed.

Also, Node Requirements is going to be published with Informational status 
(e.g., it doesn't advance through the standards process).

Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:55:33 +0200

> implement just RFC2460 and not RFC2461 and RFC2462 am I still compliant?

That isn't necessary. The node requirements draft is indeed the one that
summarizes what you need to support, but it can refer equally well to
a DS or a Standard document. It isn't a compliance document.

What is more tricky is for a Standard to refer normatively "down"
to a DS (or PS) - that is not normally allowed. If you think this
is silly, please join the newtrk WG.

    Brian

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:21:48 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> in this case IMHO you are not but for the more general issue the
relevant body is more the IPv6 Forum and its IPv6 ready logo program.

Regards

[email-masked]