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

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Tue, 10 January 2017 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 94AFC1299B7 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 17:07:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6P-oZwkMvj_d for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 17:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob23.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob23.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70851299B5 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 17:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.203]) by atl4mhob23.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0A17gf8113044 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:07:42 -0500
Received: (qmail 16785 invoked by uid 0); 10 Jan 2017 01:07:42 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.100.192.186
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.11?) (lee@asgard.org@68.100.192.186) by 0 with ESMTPA; 10 Jan 2017 01:07:42 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.1.161129
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:07:36 -0500
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org, iab@iab.org
Message-ID: <D4999D8B.6DA7F%lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: [IAB] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-protocol-transitions> (Out With the Old and In With the New: Planning for Protocol Transitions)
References: <148357904166.13056.1797751203596240116.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3f8254a6-ff3f-e944-3ef9-6ce2bf36df93@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3f8254a6-ff3f-e944-3ef9-6ce2bf36df93@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/mkZnYG3gP4MF4Jz8IuoCsQbHQBo>
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 01:07:45 -0000

Change advocates diluted their credibility, which may have affected
perception of the new protocol. I agree with your point, and need to think
about whether it¹s important for the audience of this document.


Lee

On 1/9/17, 7:51 PM, "IAB on behalf of Brian E Carpenter"
<iab-bounces@iab.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

>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
>> architecture-discuss@ietf.org and iab@iab.org.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>
>