Re: [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New features in Legacy IPv4 (was Re: protocols without need for ALG ?)

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 12 August 2015 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28D01B2DD3; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 dwcfzed5G1gy; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F7981A0094; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbij6 with SMTP id ij6so111666451igb.1; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ViWwAc4s6QRVlhiyq8AtN/2XrhunXRGggDpKP6b68sw=; b=ZKbFow+wTeaOlR6AWk3m+5E42DspEPV3MkDIMS8kdH4DaQ6c/lgkBXQBCOxju7iCGg Hhz2E23tyUWG9HzHaN9cn7lpnmXyUeVCF23F5i+rtBBHCubnqE3PWWfZNYXm4q8tJ9jr sKs23QcMgZBGL4JHCHB6O2m1mHvceyg8lZ8WYLR63fp62pWA/4K2pxpZLVdp6HunR2FW seoik7ToYgYpboN5cv+M15j6RrEeGk2bmPei6/8kjvd4prTOp2rJ8zXI6U2ob4nZ5y6K J7SsXsLhUAIYT2HTim6JgONU+IOW4XuGX8J95SBhcM4Ai/X72jjsoUfV4l7JtbNJb5av FASA==
X-Received: by 10.50.112.73 with SMTP id io9mr23948836igb.18.1439386582147; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.169.143 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D1F0BFBE.BED96%Lee.Howard@twcable.com>
References: <D1EF60F2.643E2%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGSmwogXb+OgGoPqSsvRL==h7YL763+sjWUY8_aqKkmTuw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yLVh4AgmKKLK2bRF0x_-+nWAe3f__W9mJCKCRd+-MadA@mail.gmail.com> <D1F0BFBE.BED96%Lee.Howard@twcable.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:35:52 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2x6eUHtuZ1tDFiixEy8HLf8GTG+G5fhJn=b+fL-MqUTtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Howard, Lee" <lee.howard@twcable.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/DFrEa2QQ-usk9Unv_DtNBfK2mWY>
Cc: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New features in Legacy IPv4 (was Re: protocols without need for ALG ?)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:36:56 -0000

On 12 August 2015 at 23:25, Howard, Lee <lee.howard@twcable.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it time to resurrect this draft and push it forward? It doesn't
>>>> explicitly prohibit work of the type proposed in the above drafts, but
>>>>I'd
>>>> like to think that  the current language strongly discourages it.
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-support-03
>>>>
>>>> Wes George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.  We clearly see that folks need the message to be unambiguous
>>>
>>
>>Deprecating IPv4 would do the trick. Doesn't mean you can't use it,
>>doesn't mean it can't continue to be fixed, just means that it has
>>become the legacy Internet protocol.
>
> I searched in vain for an IETF definition of ³Deprecated,² although I did
> find some examples.
> I found a definition of ³Historic² (sort of) in rfc2026 and an old
> clarifying draft draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-03.
> All of those words seem to suggest that the deprecated/historic/obsolete
> protocol could still be used, but to be careful with it. I¹d call it a
> SHOULD NOT, meaning don¹t unless you have a really good reason.
> I would be delighted if somebody has pointers to better definitions.
>

Hmm, I've thought the term "deprecated" was in more common use in the
IETF, as it has been in the context of protocols that I've learnt the
definition of the word - it means it'll still work, but isn't the best
or recommended way to solve the problem. SHOULD NOT would be the same
thing.

Regards,
Mark.


> This work would need to happen in 6man or intarea WG, I think. I therefore
> offer no opinion here.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.