Re: I-D Action: draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt

I will agree with you if this is an STD document, but being an Informational one, I think it make sense to say something.

We can clarify that the support of the transition mechanism is while it is required by the ISP deploying those products while there is still a dependency on IPv4.

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Responder a: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Fecha: lunes, 31 de octubre de 2016, 17:04
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
CC: <6man@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: I-D Action: draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt

    Speaking for myself, I would think that is a market issue, not a standards issue. It would be strange to be requiring 6rd or whatever after IPv4 has been shut down. I would rather let markets determine their requirements.

    > On Oct 31, 2016, at 8:44 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Tim,
    > 
    > Should IPv6 nodes include support for some transition mechanisms? I’ve my doubts myself in this case, specially because actual OS have it (minimum 6in4, sometimes many others), even some cellular phones (Android and Windows) include support for 464XLAT.
    > 
    > Same question for IPv6 routers ? Here I will say is a must. What is the sense of a router today, not supporting at least a few transition mechanisms, in order to facilitate the ISPs that run out of IPv4 addresses to keep deploying IPv6 (464XLAT, MAP, …)?
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > 
    > 
    > -----Mensaje original-----
    > De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
    > Responder a: <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
    > Fecha: lunes, 31 de octubre de 2016, 16:27
    > Para: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
    > Asunto: Re: I-D Action: draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt
    > 
    >    Hi,
    > 
    >    As discussed at IETF96, Tim, John and I have posted a (quite rough) RFC6434-bis -00 draft.
    > 
    >    The body of this -00 text is unchanged from RFC6434, with the exception that the author and acknowledgment text has been updated.
    > 
    >    We have discussed potential changes, and reviewed 6MAN publications since RFC6434 was published.
    > 
    >    Rather than editing the RFC6434 text, we have instead added a number of “comments" in the new -00 text delimited by 
    > 
    >    **BIS …blah blah… ** 
    > 
    >    in standalone paragraphs which loosely describe the changes that we think could be made, with the idea of getting some initial high level feedback and consensus on those potential changes. We will refine the “comments" into real changes to the body of the text in a future version, assuming we can see that the changes have consensus, or at least no objections.
    > 
    >    At this stage, what would be useful is review of the appropriateness of the “comments”, and suggestions for any further things to be added, changed, or removed, if only at a high level at this point, though suggested document text is always welcome.
    > 
    >    We’ve requested a short slot in Seoul to move the work forward.
    > 
    >    Tim 
    > 
    >> On 31 Oct 2016, at 15:05, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
    >> 
    >> 
    >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
    >> 
    >> 
    >>       Title           : IPv6 Node Requirements
    >>       Authors         : Tim Chown
    >>                         John Loughney
    >>                         Tim Winters
    >> 	Filename        : draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt
    >> 	Pages           : 34
    >> 	Date            : 2016-10-31
    >> 
    >> Abstract:
    >>  This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
    >>  that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
    >>  Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
    >>  well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
    >>  deployments.
    >> 
    >>  This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.
    >> 
    >>  NB.  This is a first -00 version of the update to RFC 6434.  We have
    >>  not yet edited original text from RFC 6434 apart from the author and
    >>  acknowledgement texts, which carry forward from the older versions.
    >> 
    >>  We have indicated intended changes (additions, updates or deletion of
    >>  text at a high level in the sections below with text delimited by
    >>  **BIS ... ** comments, e.g.
    >> 
    >>  **BIS Add discussion of the impact of RFC xxxx **
    >> 
    >>  **BIS Update reference of RFC 3484 and note new address selection
    >>  implications**
    >> 
    >>  etc.  These will become edits in future versions once the substance
    >>  of the changes is agreed.
    >> 
    >> 
    >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
    >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis/
    >> 
    >> There's also a htmlized version available at:
    >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00
    >> 
    >> 
    >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
    >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
    >> 
    >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
    >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
    >> 
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> I-D-Announce mailing list
    >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
    >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
    >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
    >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
    > 
    >    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    >    ipv6@ietf.org
    >    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    >    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.consulintel.es
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    > ipv6@ietf.org
    > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.