Hi, I hear that there are some discussions about a new version of RIPE 501 in other forums than this mailing list for this wg. More precisely in some LinkedIn Forum. Let me in a few words say that side discussions makes me somewhat nervous. This document do have a large impact on the market and although of course its existence should be announced widely, I do not want to see actual discussions that lead to new versions anywhere else than here on this mailing list. If for example editors do get feedback privately or elsewhere than here on the list, I expect I will see at least summaries of that discussion here. We at Cisco have read RIPE-501 in detail, we have compared the document with other similar requirements documents, and yes, we will come shortly with some suggestions for changes. Both based on our experience with other such documents (it would be good if they are somewhat similar), and feedback we already have got from customers of ours that tries to use RIPE-501. I.e. pure editorial changes on how the document is composed. Patrik Fältström
On 3.1.2011 11:12, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Hi,
Patrik, hi.
I hear that there are some discussions about a new version of RIPE 501 in other forums than this mailing list for this wg. More precisely in some LinkedIn Forum.
Link to the document have been posted in Linked-in IPv6 forum by some guy and there were some questions about it, precisely mainly about DHCPv6 client requested in hosts section. I don't count this as a discussion for new version of any kind, just clarification.
Let me in a few words say that side discussions makes me somewhat nervous.
Agree.
This document do have a large impact on the market and although of course its existence should be announced widely, I do not want to see actual discussions that lead to new versions anywhere else than here on this mailing list. If for example editors do get feedback privately or elsewhere than here on the list, I expect I will see at least summaries of that discussion here.
We expect to start with real work on this document in few days, keeping this list in sync with everything that is going on with the doc. Merike Kaeo is joining in as co-author of the document (thnx Merike) and my first thoughts over X-mass time were to extend the spec to include mobile nodes and CPE requirements. Just a thoughts, among many others.
We at Cisco have read RIPE-501 in detail, we have compared the document with other similar requirements documents, and yes, we will come shortly with some suggestions for changes.
Very good, I hear you and Ole did a splendid job checking RIPE-501 doc internally within you company and coleagues. Please, send proposed changes :)
Both based on our experience with other such documents (it would be good if they are somewhat similar),
Yes, we got requests from some entities to be in sync with their work, IPv6 Ready Logo program, NIST, and others. Let's see how that works...
and feedback we already have got from customers of ours that tries to use RIPE-501. I.e. pure editorial changes on how the document is composed.
Brilliant! :) Jan Zorz P.S: ...wishes exciting and challenging new year :)
participants (2)
-
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Patrik Fältström