On 10/3/19 10:13 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > There is one thing in 1122/1123 and 1812 that is not in those kinds > of documents that I miss; that is essentially "why". Going through > 1122/1123 and 1812, you'll ind several sections that say "we require > X", and follow that with a "discussion" section that says "we thought > about X, Y, and Z, there were proponents of each, the arguments were > X', Y', and Z', and we chose X for this reason". I would presume that > what you're really looking for in a 1812-for-IPv6 is not "we require > X" as much as "for this reason". Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ah. What I'm looking for is a list of check-boxes to include in an implementation specification for an edge router. It can be references to a whole bunch of RFCs and "packaged" as a BCP. The discussions you describe are better in the individual papers. Side note: I'm used to rationales being included in Standards, and welcome them, as long as they are normative and clearly marked so. > I can kick the idea around in the IETF if its important to you. I'll > be looking for a LOT of operational input. It could well me that the data is there, we just need a document to index it all. That's what I thought a BPC was supposed to be. It would be like an article in ACM Computing Surveys, which references the existing literature, as opposed to being created from whole cloth. I think I steered everyone wrong when I was talking about some of the exposition in the text, specifically the examples. That kind of material really belongs in an RFC. My apologies.
