Moin,
> Yes. State the main point in 8504bis and defer the details to the
> specialized document.
kk; Does the text in -02 work for you?
With best regards,
Tobias
--
Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig
T +31 616 80 98 99
M tob...@fiebig.nl
Pronouns: he/him/his
_
On 07-Apr-25 22:19, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
Moin,
We had a similar discussion about EH processing for 8504. You’ll see
some text in there about that, as we thought that better than a
dependency on a parallel draft. That “parallel draft” is now only
just in IESG review several years on.
I would
Moin,
> We had a similar discussion about EH processing for 8504. You’ll see
> some text in there about that, as we thought that better than a
> dependency on a parallel draft. That “parallel draft” is now only
> just in IESG review several years on.
I would say 'both' is a good option here (ass
Moin,
On Fri, 2025-04-04 at 08:13 +, Tim Chown wrote:
> The general principle in 8504 is to be a summary of requirements and
> to point to other RFCs that define them, so doing both is perfectly
> viable.
Fair point; Question is, though, if one would want to basically create
a dependency for
Hi,
On 04/04/2025, 10:29, "Tobias Fiebig" wrote:
Moin,
On Fri, 2025-04-04 at 08:13 +, Tim Chown wrote:
> The general principle in 8504 is to be a summary of requirements and
> to point to other RFCs that define them, so doing both is perfectly
> viable.
Fair point; Question is, though, if
Hi,
On 03/04/2025, 22:08, "Brian E Carpenter" wrote:
Hi Tobias,
On 03-Apr-25 21:05, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
> Moin,
>> Good point. So maybe we do need a stand-alone BCP for this? Or
>> perhaps it should be added to section 7 of draft-ietf-6man-rfc8504-
>> bis?
>>
>> "IPv6 addresses for DNS servers
Hi Tobias,
On 03-Apr-25 21:05, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
Moin,
Good point. So maybe we do need a stand-alone BCP for this? Or
perhaps it should be added to section 7 of draft-ietf-6man-rfc8504-
bis?
"IPv6 addresses for DNS servers SHOULD be preferred over IPv4."
This is pretty close to the 3901bi
Moin,
> Good point. So maybe we do need a stand-alone BCP for this? Or
> perhaps it should be added to section 7 of draft-ietf-6man-rfc8504-
> bis?
>
> "IPv6 addresses for DNS servers SHOULD be preferred over IPv4."
This is pretty close to the 3901bis discussion in DNSOP atm; I would
personally
