Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-protocol-transitions> (Out With the Old and In With the New: Planning for Protocol Transitions)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I think this is now in pretty good shape.

There is one aspect of the IPv6 case study that might, or might not,
be useful to mention. I refer to a tendency for overstated claims,
some of which were just exaggerated and some of which were simply
untrue. This didn't come from IETF sources. In fact some of us
ran around after the perpetrators giving talks about "IPv6 myths".
For example, there was a persistent myth that IPv6 was more secure
than IPv4. (There was also a myth that IPv6 was less secure than IPv4.)

This was highly unhelpful, especially when it infected the government
mandates.

Regards
   Brian

On 05/01/2017 14:17, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote:
> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 
> draft-iab-protocol-transitions-05.
> 
> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC 
> within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-protocol-transitions/
> 
> The Call for Comment will last until 2017-02-01. Please send comments to
> [e-mail] and [e-mail].
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    Over the many years since the introduction of the Internet Protocol,
>    we have seen a number of transitions from one protocol or technology
>    to another, throughout the protocol stack.  Many protocols and
>    technologies were not designed to enable smooth transition to
>    alternatives or to easily deploy extensions, and thus some
>    transitions, such as the introduction of IPv6, have been difficult.
>    This document attempts to summarize some basic principles to enable
>    future transitions, and also summarizes what makes for a good
>    transition plan.
> 
>