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

Would it be worth modelling the inclusion of DEPRECATED as a new normative
word, and rehearse what exactly we'd want it to mean?

-George

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>