Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt>

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:09:23 +0200

Nothing is wrong in BCP 104, it needs no "updated by" moving the definition
of the term "version support" from one of its sections to another section.

-Frank

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:03:32 +1200

Frank,

> of the term "version support" from one of its sections to another section.

But there *is* something wrong with it - it makes IPv6 sound
like an optional add-on to basic IP service.

I thought this was a bug in BCP 104 at the time, and told the
author so, but lost that argument. That was reasonable in
2004/5, but things have moved on. Then, an ISP could argue that
providing IPv6 service was difficult or impossible; today, that
excuse is weak.

On 2011-08-23 07:44, George, Wesley wrote:

> Brian was the one who originally suggested this RFC be added as updated by this draft, so I'm keen to hear his opinion as well.

Well, I'm not sure there is much point in wordsmithing BCP 104
beyond simply moving version support up into first class, but I
am completely convinced that should be done.

   Brian

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:42:16 +0200

> providing IPv6 service was difficult or impossible; today, that

This is a very important BCP.  It is about non-Internet providers
claiming to be ISPs while favouring packets by IP or manipulating
DNS.  Not offering IPv6 in 2011 also isn't nice, but if the latter
requires new text it should be in a new BCP.  While at it the new
BCP could reference 4409bis instead of RFC 2476.

Getting an "updated by" only as some kind of IPv6 promotion would
IMHO not help with the main purpose of this BCP.

-Frank