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

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

Nick,
On 01-May-19 09:55, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote on 30/04/2019 21:48:
>> So I'd rather understand *why* the costs outweigh the benefits. One 
>> more thing for an operator to configure and check in each first-hop 
>> router, vs reduction of pointless traffic on updated hosts. I'm not 
>> sure how to make that an objective rather than a subjective 
>> trade-off.
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Email is being a serious barrier to communication in this discussion :-(
> 
> The problem statement just isn't there:
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GCGYTXhg0V9mQBrcO7zhC5wtnp0
> 
> The contents of this email largely still apply to the current text in -05.

It's a judgment call. IMHO the problem statement is adequate. In your opinion, it isn't.

> The cost is too high:
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NIJ194PI8CLkuZT8U_jKEOY01QI
> 
> You've shown no analysis of realistic use cases.
> 
> For something standards track, and this far down the protocol stack and 
> with such a large security considerations section, the proposal ought to 
> be thoroughly compelling for a wide variety of deployment scenarios, but 
> it isn't.  There are better ways of skinning this cat.

Again, a judgment call. We do refer to Layer 2 solutions and this is clearly positioned as a complementary approach.
 
The authors aren't going to make the final judgment call, obviously.

   Brian