Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

From:  Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
Date:  Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:18 PM
To:  Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>
Cc:  Lee Howard <[e-mail]>, IESG IESG <[e-mail]>, Bob Hinden
<[e-mail]>, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>, IETF Discussion
<[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Lee Howard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care about IPv4
>>> > anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF.
>> 
>> This is why I was so surprised by the controversy.   Sigh
> 
> Unfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the best way
> to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6 'better' and to
> sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage.

IPv6 IS the mitigation of the consequences of IPv4 shortage.

But my opinion is well-documented in draft-george-ipv6-support.

> 
> The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old strategy.
> Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the same so that
> the transition cost is minimal.

It isn't clear to me that a change in strategy is required. To remain on
topic, will moving this Experimental RFC to Proposed Standard make the
transition any easier?

The goal isn't IPv6, though‹the goal is a functioning, interoperable
Internet. I believe we have consensus that IPv6 is the best mechanism to
achieve that. I think I see consensus that some transition tools are
temporarily useful as people wait for others to deploy. Do we need a
Proposed Standard for those temporary transition tools?

Lee