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

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Wed, 12 August 2015 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 093E11B2E1E for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fGwLSLTE5AvL for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com (mail-ob0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (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 8DB211B2E1B for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbhe7 with SMTP id he7so12980734obb.0 for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qRw7Nl3Su/1f1Q3sHCMg73+cZQG2ebm+jI4hWtF9N0o=; b=Ozf8MAlRc9J2QQCz+qOst/pWKb3i6yrHo3xgMgouPIQW+ndUy8/HCEJTCMVhDQhjjw aGecW8oRSzsLyoJqc93OQiBhCWlHtucF+ircFnMgijR3SDQcf8bR6Qq4IjzUSr+NrghT jgm0s7G8msklBgXLqZFTkyPRoslzgMyYBheOpNec9lK7fT2kWIitJuf9BDtrn6CwG7Bj oFoHB8coSi1AXIr5gcoksuM0d6murx73SEFJxrOvuf1h9brZl6/hIRd/mNWBQ1bPdmiX VITniI+O5QZYYbN/g+QV1lHe8V5NEJ3fytT8Dp/uHFNS/Q7JqMAkoItCU+jFqULg/ECt q8sA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnCWq20y9fgC3kD078hD4tgp39hFnYmPvbWW1snDkcoSa5Cz9X5AH9vx4yQPB7Y7UXCcNT5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.78.230 with SMTP id e6mr31563017oex.24.1439387525963; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.94.228 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:13c7:7001:2128:74f4:eca9:24a:a36d]
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2x6eUHtuZ1tDFiixEy8HLf8GTG+G5fhJn=b+fL-MqUTtg@mail.gmail.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> <CAO42Z2x6eUHtuZ1tDFiixEy8HLf8GTG+G5fhJn=b+fL-MqUTtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:52:05 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn34qqLVg+nkUvR1LkXQUOs1K+nbAN_NcxSHSJfTxz6+6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111b2a22e1008051d1d868b
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/uBo4mjg_GMXrXnzqgWbiYkSiyv8>
Cc: "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 13:52:09 -0000

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
>