IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34A3129E1B for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 03:57:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4Kf6pzW2hqM for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 03:57:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA36129E19 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 03:57:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2499; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484135847; x=1485345447; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=q/e/GwXxbTbvxip46rJM9UtNoLYo/EMAZK0ZtPzwEnU=; b=err0Sum6MJejS1pEcBNmmkFm302w4eBaUWBaUnYpOTjChKn5HppRFFWT Q8wZVauzaUJVDWN2sqmJMv0SPA9GX2NAswA1LyQMjr609RdBQGl6Ert7S cNZOgPWeYYvIT8gNC3Dqi7As2OY8xORf2jka9TQ6i8NjC3r12VaZ/jChy 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CsAQD+HHZY/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgzsBAQEBAYEBLIQtighykSGVJ4ILhRKBEAKCLxQBAgEBAQEBAQFjKIRqAQUdBlYQCxgjBwICVwYNCAEBiHywPoIlihYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQERD4hHgl+HToJeBZAZixGDZ4F/i22KLYY4kmEfOIETEgcVFYUigWgdiRsBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,345,1477958400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="651526741"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jan 2017 11:57:23 +0000
Received: from [10.61.98.112] (dhcp-10-61-98-112.cisco.com [10.61.98.112]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0BBvM2L006722; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:57:22 GMT
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <148357904166.13056.1797751203596240116.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <d079c169-a60b-21db-a031-7e3658166443@cisco.com> <CABkgnnWrjTe5J0qgr1kjtisKL5q4BR6XDoh7y3p3rjc+G4EQEA@mail.gmail.com> <3f13be22-cf8a-d2b8-6ac3-70f405e2a04b@cisco.com> <CABkgnnUr5DhRDCWgt8ang=smL768bYyrDCCr6TFH0MJAVPNNWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <378aa597-20e0-781e-98da-1391e4d74fb8@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 03:57:21 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUr5DhRDCWgt8ang=smL768bYyrDCCr6TFH0MJAVPNNWg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1I6Xg5a2j04Hb7lH8e225FJlMQedaK68r"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/IqHm1FlR1cTYA5llDgIgRgpv3BI>
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [IAB] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-protocol-transitions> (Out With the Old and In With the New: Planning for Protocol Transitions)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:57:29 -0000

Hi Martin,

On 1/10/17 5:27 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> In my opinion, the question of whether you intend for the old version
> to eventually disappear is usually a moot question for protocols.  The
> HDTV example might not apply here.  I can't imagine we'd be looking to
> reassign the meaning of version 4 in the IP header any time soon.
>
> Protocols either die or they don't and we only care to the extent that
> we have to support them.

That might be a point worth capturing, but your use of version 4 is well
chosen, because we are quite a lot about the resources associated to it
versus version 6 ;-)

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email