Re: IPv6-only IETF web server for publishing an Internet Draft?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 14/05/2018 à 15:33, Anton Ivanov a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 05/04/18 12:48, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Personal opinion only...
>>
>> A key part of the intent of Internet Drafts is that they be
>> generally available to anyone interested on the Internet.  I
>> understand the motivations for experiments and demonstrations
>> but, if something is posted that is deliberately inaccessible to
>> someone who cannot not or will not use IPv6, it invalidates the
>> function of the document as a generally-accessible I-D and
>> presumably could result in a process problem (or appeal) if
>> there were any attempt to move it into an IETF consensus process.
>>
>> Please do demonstrations and experiments in another way.
> 
> +1
> 
> On the difference of Draft vs Rant.
> 
> A draft is submitted via the IETF website, versioned, subject to the 
> restrictions described in the relevant RFCs and processes and accessible 
> to THE ENTIRE INTERNET COMMUNITY via the ietf website.

I can agree that it is going to be hard to do versioning on something 
else than the automated IETF datatracker.  Now it is manual posting with 
two people involved each time.

> Something restricted by the author based on arbitrary criteria and 
> accessible via an arbitrary mechanism is a rant.

An IPv6 Draft on an IPv6 server is no more of a rant than a claim of 
IPv6 full access on an IPv6 access network.

Such claims were made recently on IETF mailing lists: some IPv4-IPv6 
transitioning mechanism was claimed to work on experimental ESSIDs at 
IETF meeting.  Such claim pretends that an access system be IPv6 full 
access yet not support ping6 2001:4860:4860::8888.  (such claims are 
happening outside IETF too, but not the intention to discuss that here).

Are these claims qualified as rants as well?

/end of rhetorics :-)

Alex

> This is regardless of the mechanism being NetBIOS, IPX, RFC1149 or 
> RFC2549. All are equally good for ranting and selective presentation 
> only to the chosen ones.
> 
> So if ranting is desired, the rantee can go and rant wherever he/she 
> likes over whatever protocol he/she likes, it is not an IETF, IETF WG or 
> IETF mailing list matter.
> 
> A.
> 
>>
>>      john
>>
>>
>> --On Friday, May 4, 2018 11:37 +0200 "Marco Davids (Private)"
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/05/2018 10:16, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there an ietf.org web server that could be accessed only
>>>> on IPv6?
>>>>
>>>> I would like to submit an Internet Draft but I want it to be
>>>> read only with IPv6 https (not IPv4).
>>> Make sure it is *truly* IPv6 only for additional fun. So, the
>>> name servers should also only have AAAA records.
>>>
>>> An example of what I mean can be found here:
>>> https://dnslabs.nl/
>>>
>>> And speaking of IPv6 fun; I still like http://42.be/ quite a
>>> lot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>