Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Fred,


On 30-Apr-19 14:45, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 29, 2019, at 4:03 AM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> There have been extensive objections to this draft during the various discussions on the WG, during which a wide variety of fundamental problems were raised which were either left unaddressed or were only partially addressed.
> 
> My objections, and related objections by others, have been summarily dismissed.

I've just read through about eight messages about this draft from you. I don't think your comment is quite fair. You've objected to the basic model (a given IPv6 router says "I don't route IPv4"), I assume because it doesn't convey authoritatively that there is no other IPv4 router on the link. As the draft has evolved, it's stated more and more precisely that this is the intended semantic and how hosts SHOULD interpret it. It's also stated more and more precisely what the network manager SHOULD do. But indeed, we haven't changed the underlying semantic that a single router can only state that it doesn't itself route IPv4. That is fundamental, since we are not proposing a command-and-control solution.

We've also expanded the security considerations considerably, another aspect that you mentioned.

And we didn't mention you in the Acknowledgments, which is a mistake, sorry.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter