I support this document to be published. Good work, well done. Some suggestions: - RFC 2461 (2 occurrences) to be replaced by RFC 4861? - RFC 2462 (1 occurrence) to be replaced by RFC 4862 What about load balancers, these types of equipment can hardly fit in the categories defined (if I'm correct). Yet they might be a pain in termes ov v6-v4 functional and performance parity. Is that implicitly included somewhere (I might overlooked) or just omitted/forgotten? Mohsen. On 07 Nov, David Kessens wrote: | | Working Group, | | The "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" draft seems to have reached a | level of maturity that is enough to issue a formal Last Call to determine | whether it is ready for publication as a RIPE document. | | The latest version is available here: | | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6-ict-requirements.html | | We would appreciate if you let us know by the end of November 17, 2010 if | you have read the document and whether you support the publication of the | document. | | As long as we get at least 8 statements of support and no significant issues | are raised, we will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after fixing | minor editorial issues (if found). | | David, Marco & Shane