IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 21 August 2011 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1EF21F86AC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EA43Jp5Z6Yii for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBA621F86B6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywm21 with SMTP id 21so3464804ywm.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ap94FJYNKPpyUxQzAKKaG7N/4AwVEAfRofx4Azas85E=; b=Qm2j4j7+pZWDTDlnRxHOZrY/FNUf7q0/lcQtaL+HwOWyjBxfhE4mJ6EBqpnENYHyV0 TjREIkfo8aD4We7t3HDBl26mfLPHQXv1IKtsZPKp+6lYfhanIALeXqKs5DE8XSZbSrt7 +Q9MjaSNqi1INV+WMU/1e+kYc68rh9ZwjHky0=
Received: by 10.236.139.169 with SMTP id c29mr9917331yhj.122.1313967549487; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e21sm2945166yhn.7.2011.08.21.15.59.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E518DB7.8020400@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:59:03 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
References: <20110819183305.27249.79870.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110820031053.0a551ca8@resistor.net> <4E504816.2080604@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110820182242.09b4c238@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110820182242.09b4c238@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 22:58:07 -0000

On 2011-08-21 19:02, SM wrote:
> Hi Brian,

...
> IPv6 node requirements are defined in RFC 4294.  It's merely an
> informative reference in draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.  The
> discussion about IPV4 address pool exhaustion (Section 1) is a
> distraction from a definition of an IP-capable node.  If the intention
> is to push for IPv6 support in all nodes so that an IP node is
> ubiquitous with IPv4 and IPv6, it would be helpful to have a clear and
> concise document about that.  I do not view concise as saying "MUST
> support IPv6" and be done with it.  The document would state which
> technical specifications an IP-capable mode must support.

That is the role of draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis (which, if
approved, will obsolete RFC 4294). There are practical reasons
why both of these documents are Informational, and thefore would
require special arguments to be cited normatively.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email