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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

<tp>inline</tp>
----- Original Message -----
From: "George, Wesley" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>; "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 7:12 PM

From: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Reply-to: [e-mail]

I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
____________
WEG] well, I find the vehemence of your statement a bit bizarre, but I would
like to address your concerns if possible. Please explain how a recommendation
to support IPv6 is going to "seriously damage the internet."

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.
____________
WEG] Agree. IETF has remained version-agnostic for some time now. But they have
not made anything like the statement that this draft makes, which is that IPv6
will be necessary because IPv4 is going to have difficulties in continuing to
provide the same level of service post-exhaustion. In the authors' opinions, it
is long overdue as guidance to implementers, so we made the statement in the
hopes that we'd reach consensus, which in a way is a stronger statement than
something coming out of the IAB anyway.

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, 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).
___________
WEG] Ignoring for a moment the commentary on the state of the IPv6 RFCs vs IPv4,
and the need for a "rosetta stone," I'll note that the choice to update several
IP(v4) RFCs was something that has been controversial based on Intarea LC
feedback as well, but we believed necessary to provide the linkage between the
two. Honestly, I would have rather seen IETF issue formal updates to the
existing "IP" RFCs to include IPv6, rather than building an entirely parallel
set of documents, but here we are, so we made a choice. It would be helpful to
understand whether your resistance to this document is solely due to the
decision to have this be standards track, to update several existing RFCs, or
both vs the general recommendation that implementers should support IPv6.

<tp>
A general recommendation for implementers (and operators?) to support IPv6
is fine.  The part I am objecting to is having a standards track document
claiming to
update documents such as RFC1122.

Someone attracted by the title, and then seeing what the actual updates are to
RFC1122 etc, will, I fear, regard this as ridiculous, and will think that if
there is no
real update to RFC1122, or a fresh document for IPv6, then the IETF cannot be
serious about IPv6.  I believe that an IPv6 equivalent to RFC1122 etc is needed
now, and agree with Brian that
"draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is a step on the way."
but only a step.

Tom Petch
</tp>

While I believe that removing the update references will reduce the impact of
the document, I am not opposed to issuing a new version of the document that
does so and keeps to simply documenting the requirements for IPv6 support if
consensus supports that action.

Thanks
Wes George