On 11/14/14, 12:11 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The underlying claim of this errata is that the specifications for IPv6 >support in IP VPN should officially UPDATE the specifications for IPv4 >IP VPNs (RFC4364), so as to convey the idea that "both standards are > necessary for a full implementation" of RFC4364. > >The claim can have its merits, but I'm not sure that any IETF or WG >consensus has ever validated this idea. I disagree. RFC6540/BCP177 is a consensus BCP discussing this very idea. While it is technically guidance to implementers, rather than IETF, its principal message is that IPv6 is necessary in new implementations, and thus would lead to the conclusion that for a full implementation of this technology, IPv6 is a requirement. But let's be clear here, IETF isn't the protocol police. Metadata links between two standards to show the relationship between them are not likely to dictate a decision to implement or not implement the updating standard, any more than BCP177 will force someone to implement IPv6. I think that the nuanced inference that you are making as to why "updates" is used or not used is going to be lost on all but those deeply involved in IETF standards minutiae. An implementer will be working on behalf of one or more customers who will specify exactly which standards must be implemented (or more accurately, what features are necessary) to meet their requirements. Metadata in this case is to help implementers find the links between documents when they build upon one another and make the act of implementing IETF standards mildly more user-friendly. 4659 has 4364 as a normative reference, I am simply suggesting that there should be a forward reference to 4659 from 4364 to identify that the protocol was later extended with new features that they should consider implementing. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
