Consensus call on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag
Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 20 June 2019 10:20 UTC
Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D34012009C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 03:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5c43FcneSJ5m for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 03:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD5F1200F1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 03:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E11A5FECBF79; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:20:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57DE17EE647; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Consensus call on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag
Message-Id: <A52FC55F-F3C6-4A02-91FC-DDA2ADD8DF38@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:20:13 +0200
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZDRdrl22gCmXRgy8J0lzFA-YdPY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:20:19 -0000
My apologies for the lateness in calling the consensus on the draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-only-flag document. The last call ended 2019-05-13. RFC7282: "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated" As far as I can tell all technical issues have been addressed. The mechanism proposed is interoperable, implementations with and without support can co-exist on the same link, the security implications are considered and found equivalent in scope to existing ND security issues. The arguments made against standardizing the ipv6only flag: - the principle of having one network layer protocol disable another. - dependencies in host behaviour between IPv6 and IPv4 protocol stacks - the added complexity in operation. "Yet another thing that could go wrong and must be checked". - alternative means to achieve the goals of reducing IPv4 traffic on an IPv6 only network exists. The chair has found the decision difficult, but has concluded that there is no consensus to advance the document. And as always it is possible to appeal this decision: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.5 Ole, 6man co-chair