[ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page

I'll bite for a 2th time :) ... and will try to not bite for a third time :)

Tjc> Out of interest, do vendors state compliance with 554 against certain product ranges?

GV> As far I am aware Cisco does not publicly state that support... We do see the requirement in nearly every RFP mentioning IPv6 (and not only in Europe people are referencing RIPE554). So it is an important reference for us. Keep doing the good work for a single reference for good common sense IPv6 behaviour.

Tjc>In reading around this, I stumbled on http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/cisco/nsp/165859. This is an important topic - is the list there to set the bar for IPv6 functionality, or to provide a list that vendors can easily meet?  I hope the former.  Sorry Gunter!

GV> Good point... My take is that a document like RIPE-554 should give people using it the confidence that they ask a vendor common sense features that are generally successfully deployed. I can understand the angle Tim is coming from, to pressure the innovativeness of suppliers, and see a need for that in some format or document, however the materialisation of that should not be a BCP like RIPE554. A BCP should document important features and technologies that are currently successfully deployed (and not features that tomorrow may be successfully deployed).

G/

From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
Sent: 28 May 2013 10:20
To: MarcoH
Cc: Peter Koch; ipv6-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page


On 28 May 2013, at 09:07, MarcoH <marcoh at marcoh.net<mailto:marcoh at marcoh.net>> wrote:


On May 28, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Peter Koch wrote:


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:43:28AM +0400, MarcoH wrote:


- Requirements for enterprise/ISP grade "Layer 2 switch" equipment Mandatory support:

Router Advertisement (RA) filtering [RFC4862]

Where this should be probably be a requirement for RFC 6105 which actually is called "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard".

this sounds much more like a content update than an erratum to me.
Fixing a - hypothetical - RFC number typo might be an erratum.

It is quite a radical change, but I do think that one of the authors already confirmed this really was a mistake. But maybe Jan or Sander can give more details.

But I'm with Daniel here in "let's first get a list" and wonder if this really is the only one or wether there are others.

The above example looks like an errata to me.  4862 specifies how RAs are handled, not how to filter them appropriately as per 6105.

The crux of the issue is who we're producing the document for, and why.  My understanding is that the primary purpose is to allow enterprise and ISP administrators to understand recommended IPv6 requirements for common deployment scenarios, and in that light it should be kept as up to date as reasonable effort allows.  If that means a new document number every couple of years, so be it.  The RIPE 501 text, in its authoritative location, states it is updated by RIPE 554 (and really that should say OBSOLETED by, to be equivalent to IETF language), so there's a clear pointer to the new version.

It may be that the document is also there to guide vendors on priorities, but I'm sure Gunter or any vendor employee can assess the diffs between 501 and 554 pretty quickly, as he could between 554 and whatever may come next. What we should avoid is moving the goalposts too frequently.

Out of interest, do vendors state compliance with 554 against certain product ranges?

In reading around this, I stumbled on http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/cisco/nsp/165859. This is an important topic - is the list there to set the bar for IPv6 functionality, or to provide a list that vendors can easily meet?  I hope the former.  Sorry Gunter!

And yes, a list of proposed changes would be very useful.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20130528/f2f3be2e/attachment.html>