Hello IPv6 Working Group!
Thanks for the great discussions on the IPv6 WG during RIPE83.
We are ready to get consensus on the new RIPE554 document, so here is your very very last chance to make changes by commenting it on this list.
If no dramatic changes have come up we will approve the document on Friday 3.12
Link to the live draft:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10HsfHDOIhUPIvGk9WP0azJiIsMVzQ49RsqWfnbN…
Cheers,
The Ripe IPv6 WG chairs,
Jen, Benedikt, Raymond
Raymond Jetten
Senior Technology Specialist
Production
Cloud Services, Networks and connectivity
Interconnectivity & Content
Elisa Oyj
Vuolteenkatu 2
33100 Tampere
+358 45 6700 139
raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi<mailto:raymond.jetten@elisa.fi>
www.elisa.fi<http://www.elisa.fi/>
Lisätietoa henkilötietojen käsittelystä ja tietosuojasta Elisalla https://elisa.fi/tietosuoja
Mer information om Elisas hantering av personuppgifter och dataskydd https://elisa.fi/tietosuoja
More information on personal data management and data protection at Elisa https://elisa.com/dataprotection
*********************************************************************************************
For Internal Use Only
Tim*2, Sander, Jan, and Merike,
First of all, thank you for taking the pen to update this document. As you kindly asked for comments, here are some
- page 2: 'fairly recent' won't age well ;-)
- page 4: all requirements are limited to performance, but should it also include telemetry/monitoring ? Or is it implicit in the list of RFC ?
- page 4: what about systems to handle VMs and containers ?
- page 4: mobile devices have a *big difference* with normal host though as they often have multiple interfaces active at the same time.
- page 4: should we assume that Wi-Fi access points are 'normal layer-2 switches' ?
- page 6: I am surprised to see RFC 8415 DHCPv6 client as mandatory...
- page 6: if not mistaken RFC 8200 now includes RFC 5722 and RFC 8021 (so no need to add the latter in the requirements)
- page 7: same surprise to see all DHCP-related requirements
- page 7 and other: nice to list some MIB but I would expect some YANG modules as well for enterprise/ISP devices
- page 9: should Jen's RFC 9131 be added as optional ?
Hope this helps
-éric
PS: the attached PDF has the same comments in the text.
On 02/11/2021, 16:05, "ipv6-wg on behalf of Tim Chown via ipv6-wg" <ipv6-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
Attached below is the latest draft for RIPE554-bis, the update to Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment.
The authors have incorporated feedback received on and off list, and believe the current draft is a candidate to be considered towards publication. We have a slot in the upcoming RIPE meeting to present and discuss the latest changes, but further list feedback would be welcome now. Is it ready to ship? If not, why not?
The original version can be found at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554
Best wishes,
Tim
Hey everyone,
I am a bit confused/worried about section 5 (Requirements for IPv6
support in software). There is a list, of what a developer/vendor MUST
(at a minimum) support.
However, the list contains multiple bullet points that include words
that make them seem optional (like "something SHOULD be supported" or
"it's recommended").
I don't have any experience with the creation of RFC and just joined
this mailing list to be able to see what you are doing here out of
interest, so I think this might be (at least partly) intended, as some
of these bullet points seem to have been copied from other sources
(e.g., https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 contains this
first bullet point with "recommended").
However, I think the standard should make sense on its own and therefore
don't think that this is a valid justification. Things should be clearly
marked as either mandatory or optional.
Therefore, I would suggest rephrasing the introduction sentence from
Software developer/vendor must at a minimum do the following things
to guarantee this:
to
[A] software developer/vendor should at a minimum do the following
things to guarantee this:
However, in case some things in the list should be mandatory and some
optional, I think it might make even more sense to split the list in an
optional and a mandatory list.
If all the things in the list are actually mandatory, I would propose
the following changes to the bullet points:
From
It is strongly recommended not to use any address literals in
software code, as described in “Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6” [RFC6724]
to
Address literals must not be used in software code, as described in
“Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6” [RFC6724]
From
Every place where IPv6 addresses are shown or output the notation as
specified in "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
[RFC5952]" should be followed
to
Every place where IPv6 addresses are shown or output[,] the notation
as specified in "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
[RFC5952]" must be followed
From
When setting up a connection the software should follow Default
Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 [RFC6724] or Happy
Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency [RFC8305]
to
When setting up a connection[,] the software must follow Default
Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 [RFC6724] or Happy
Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency [RFC8305]
From
These requirements should also be checked in any library or tools
used by the software
to
These requirements must also be checked in any library or tools used
by the software
I'm not particular interested in what wording exactly is used, these are
just some suggestions.
Please feel free to let me know what you think.
Lorenz
Hi,
First of all thanks to all who participated in the update of this document !
Its only a few weeks before the RIPE 83 virtual meeting, so I hope most of the discussion will be here on the list before the meeting.
During RIPE 83 we have only a 45 minute slot altogether so we don't have unlimited time there to discuss these.
I hope we have enough consensus to have this published during the meeting, so please show your support, or ask, comment etc already now.
Rgds,
Ray
IPv6 wg co chair
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Tim Chown via ipv6-wg
Sent: tiistai 2. marraskuuta 2021 17.05
To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net
Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl>; Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan(a)go6.si>; Merike Kaeo <merike(a)doubleshotsecurity.com>
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Latest draft for RIPE554-bis
Hi,
Attached below is the latest draft for RIPE554-bis, the update to Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment.
The authors have incorporated feedback received on and off list, and believe the current draft is a candidate to be considered towards publication. We have a slot in the upcoming RIPE meeting to present and discuss the latest changes, but further list feedback would be welcome now. Is it ready to ship? If not, why not?
The original version can be found at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554
Best wishes,
Tim
Hi,
Attached below is the latest draft for RIPE554-bis, the update to Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment.
The authors have incorporated feedback received on and off list, and believe the current draft is a candidate to be considered towards publication. We have a slot in the upcoming RIPE meeting to present and discuss the latest changes, but further list feedback would be welcome now. Is it ready to ship? If not, why not?
The original version can be found at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554
Best wishes,
Tim
