<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 28 May 2013, at 09:07, MarcoH <<a href="mailto:marcoh@marcoh.net">marcoh@marcoh.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On May 28, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Peter Koch wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:43:28AM +0400, MarcoH wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">- Requirements for enterprise/ISP grade "Layer 2 switch" equipment Mandatory support:<br><br>Router Advertisement (RA) filtering [RFC4862]<br><br>Where this should be probably be a requirement for RFC 6105 which actually is called "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard".<br></blockquote><br>this sounds much more like a content update than an erratum to me.<br>Fixing a - hypothetical - RFC number typo might be an erratum.<br></blockquote><br>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. <br><br>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.<br></blockquote><br></div><div>The above example looks like an errata to me. 4862 specifies how RAs are handled, not how to filter them appropriately as per 6105.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Out of interest, do vendors state compliance with 554 against certain product ranges?</div><div><br></div><div>In reading around this, I stumbled on <a href="http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/cisco/nsp/165859">http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/cisco/nsp/165859</a>. 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!</div><div><br></div><div>And yes, a list of proposed changes would be very useful.</div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div></body></html>