Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

+1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
go defensive - it isn't saying "IPv4 is evil" or anything silly
like that, it's just saying "IPv6 is the future".

RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't ready
for it yet, but draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is a step on the way.

Regards
   Brian

On 2011-08-23 08:54, ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>> I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
>> Internet to publish it.
> 
> This seems a little ... extreme. The document appears to me to be Mostly
> Harmless, with all that implies.
> 
>> The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4 is
>> fine, the sort of statement that the IAB should make, or have made, as an RFC or
>> in some other form.
> 
>> But this I-D claims
>> " Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in
>>    section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic
>>    term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the
>>    Internet Protocol suite by itself.  "
> 
>> IPv4 is a phenomenal success, and RFC1122 is a key part of that.  IPv4 was a
>> confused jumble, as IPv6 is now, and RFC1122, with another two or so I-Ds, cut
>> through the cruft and rendered it usable.  IPv6 desparately needs an equivalent
>> to RFC1122,
> 
> Complete agreement on this point. Such a document, informed by actual IPv6
> deployment experience at some sort of scale, is urgently needed. And this most
> certainly is NOT that document. But unless publishing this is seen as meeting
> the need for an 1122v6 - and I've seen no indication that's the case - I fail
> to see the harm.
> 
> OTOH, if this really is seen as being a 1122v6, then I join you in opposing
> it's publication.
> 
>> as a trawl of the v6ops list archives shows, and clearly this I-D is
>> never going to be it, but claiming that this I-D provides an update to RFC1122,
>> coupled
>> with its title, gives the message that there is not going to be such an I-D;
>> IPv6 will remain a confused jumble (and so is unlikely ever to emulate the
>> success of IPv4).
> 
> Maybe I'm being clueless about this, but I don't see how "IPv6 Support Required
> for all IP-capable nodes" gives this impression.
> 
> 				Ned
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 