I absolutely agree with your who-needs-what perspective. However, in an ideal world, Ole's draft would contain the "Mandatory/Recommended/Optional RFCs" section that would be ready for a cut-and-paste into a procurement document, in which case RIPE-501bis would only need to refer to that section of Ole's (future) RFC (or even have a copy of it, with pointer to the source). Ivan
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tim Chown Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:54 PM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment" comment
On 9 Jan 2011, at 22:10, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
I'm still thinking and need a discussion first with authors and see what
community thinks - but pointing to RFC or draft is ok for us, we know how to read RFC and so on - problem is when somebody writes a tender for buying ICT equipment - in this case going to read RFC or draft or something might be quite complicated for some people.
Not sure yet, do we just point to Ole's draft (that is excellent imho)
or do we write a list of mandatory RFCs that are 1:1 in sync with the draft and BBF paper (Ole is also editing that) and keep the list in sync if draft/RFC changes. This way tender initiator can just copy/paste RFCs and this way the job is easy.
Any thoughts?
I would assume the RFCs are what the vendors/implementors look to first, while the RIPE-501 text is, at least from what it says, aimed at enterprise sites writing procurement texts. So there's room in RIPE-501 to present the requirements in more general terms that are easier to (almost) cut and paste into tender documents. I think there's a lot of value in being able to point enterprises (e.g. universities) to RIPE-501 for procurement guidance. While some may be able to extract equivalent information from RFCs, RIPE-501 would in my view remain a valuable and useful abstraction of that information.
Tim