RIPE-554, it is time for an update
Hi WG, The authors of RIPE-554 have received suggestions for improving RIPE-554 over the years. Because we didn't want to publish a new document every couple of months (new document = new number = more confusion among users than it is worth) we just collected them. And now, almost 2 years after RIPE-554 was published, we think it is time to work on the next version! So, IPv6 WG, what would you like to see changed in RIPE-554? More/less explanatory text, more device types, adding or removing certain RFCs etc etc etc? Please let us know! To the WG chairs: can you please provide us with a slot at RIPE 68 so we can discuss this topic there? Cheers, Sander
On 07 Apr 2014, at 15:52, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi WG,
The authors of RIPE-554 have received suggestions for improving RIPE-554 over the years. Because we didn't want to publish a new document every couple of months (new document = new number = more confusion among users than it is worth) we just collected them. And now, almost 2 years after RIPE-554 was published, we think it is time to work on the next version!
So, IPv6 WG, what would you like to see changed in RIPE-554? More/less explanatory text, more device types, adding or removing certain RFCs etc etc etc? Please let us know!
Can you start by sending the current list of edits that you have shelved? That way we have a starting point and people can prevent doubles? For those concerned the current document is at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-554
To the WG chairs: can you please provide us with a slot at RIPE 68 so we can discuss this topic there?
Yes :) Marco
Hi Marco,
So, IPv6 WG, what would you like to see changed in RIPE-554? More/less explanatory text, more device types, adding or removing certain RFCs etc etc etc? Please let us know!
Can you start by sending the current list of edits that you have shelved? That way we have a starting point and people can prevent doubles?
Up to now: - add RFC 6946 (Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments) - add RFC 6620 (SAVI FCFS) / RFC 6583 - keep an eye on draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-firewall-reqs - remove RFC 4541 (MLD snooping) for layer-3 devices, they should support RFC 3810 (MLD) - remove RFC 3140 (Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes)
For those concerned the current document is at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-554
To the WG chairs: can you please provide us with a slot at RIPE 68 so we can discuss this topic there?
Yes :)
Thanks! Sander
On 07/04/14 16:07, Sander Steffann wrote:
Can you start by sending the current list of edits that you have shelved? That way we have a starting point and people can prevent doubles? Up to now: - add RFC 6946 (Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments) - add RFC 6620 (SAVI FCFS) / RFC 6583 - keep an eye on draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-firewall-reqs - remove RFC 4541 (MLD snooping) for layer-3 devices, they should support RFC 3810 (MLD) - remove RFC 3140 (Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes)
To add my 2 cents worth... As mentioned, Fernando Gont submitted the IPv6 firewall requirements spec draft to IETF OPSEC WG and my feeling is that we have a better and more appropriate venue to carve the requirements that the operators and customers are requesting when buying the equipment. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-firewall-reqs-00 We are also looking into that and I'm currently talking to Fernando maybe to incorporate (or at least sync) the FW requirements in RIPE-554 with the ones he wrote in that draft. Still no precise idea how to make all this work, so all suggestions welcome ;) The other thing also is something about QOS, need to dig my mailbox or go back to Eric Vyncke and check what exactly was the issue so I can report back. Cheers, Jan
On 7/04/14 19:34, "Jan Zorz" <jan@pragma.si> wrote:
The other thing also is something about QOS, need to dig my mailbox or go back to Eric Vyncke and check what exactly was the issue so I can report back.
Not sure either from my side but let's talk at SEE-3. It was perhaps related to CoP in general and specifically with HbH ? -éric
The authors of RIPE-554 have received suggestions for improving RIPE-554 over the years. Because we didn't want to publish a new document every couple of months (new document = new number = more confusion among users than it is worth) we just collected them. And now, almost 2 years after RIPE-554 was published, we think it is time to work on the next version!
To this first point, we also have http://www.ripe.net//ripe/docs/ipv6-in-ict/ pointing to the current version, which can easily be redirected to the new document after publication. Marco
participants (4)
-
Eric Vyncke (evyncke) -
Jan Zorz -
Marco Hogewoning -
Sander Steffann