Maybe because in doing so they show they can actually think natively with IPv6 addresses? (You'd perhaps be surprised by the number of people I run into even today who treat each v6 address like it's something they have to send through a translator to understand).
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Erik Nygren <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: +1 This seems worthwhile. Anecdotally, I've seen that engineering teams which include IPv6 examples in their design docs (eg, showing sample configurations or sample config screens or test case examples) seem much more likely to properly implement and test IPv6 support as a first-class feature. Erik On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >I recently submitted an I-D >draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00.txt, mandating use >of IPv6 in examples in RFCs. > >I was reading some pretty recent drafts and noticed that authors >continue using IPv4 in their examples. This is probably more convenient, >but is not really forward thinking. Also, the prevalence of IPv6 >examples will send a strong message that IPv4 is essentially a legacy >protocol. _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
