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

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for your comments.

> On 29 Apr 2019, at 13:03, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ole Troan wrote on 29/04/2019 11:02:
>> At the 6man meeting at IETF 104 in Prague there was support to close
>> the working group last call and advance draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05 to the IESG.
>> This call is to confirm that decision on the mailing list.
>> Please give objections and comments to this decision to the mailing
>> list, by 2019-05-13.
> 
> Ole,
> 
> 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.  Some relatively minor edits were introduced in -05, and I believe only a single comment was made about -05 on the mailing list, which incidentally did not indicate support.
> 
> Very few of the objections I've raised over the last 18 months have actually been addressed to the point that I'm happy with them.  I didn't raise them again in -05 because I assumed that they were still outstanding, as they were neither addressed adequately on the mailing list or in the draft itself.
> 
> Last September, the document moved to WGLC without prior notice to the mailing list that this would happen.  This was a surprising move, given the extent of the objections over the lifetime of the document, and the minimal scope of the changes in -02.  It was remarkable was that the scale of the historical disagreement about this document was ignored.
> 
> Now again, after another period of quiet and again, after only minimal changes, you're proposing moving the document forward.
> 
> So, is this ID proceeding on a point of procedure at this point?  I.e. is the the slate going to be wiped clean every time an update is issued, no matter how minor, and all previous objections are automatically invalidated?

Yes, I think that's a somewhat correct reading of working group process.
If I read you correctly, you don't think there is anything that can be done with this document to fix those objections. And that the only outcome is to retire the document?

> If so, I'm inclined to think that this is bordering on abuse of process, but if it's the case, please let us know and I'll bring up all the previous issues that haven't been addressed.  Again.

Here are the minutes for the IETF 104 6man meeting on the topic.
I was also surprised by the lack of resistance in the room. Therefore the extra confirmation on the mailing list.



IPv6 Router Advertisement IPv6-Only Flag,  draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag,
Bob Hinden, 15 min.   
--------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Hinden presents:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-6man-sessa-ipv6-ra-ipv6-only-flag-01

Jen Linkova: The document is nice and ready.  Just one comment.  I had
the strange idea of using it in a dual-stacked network.  There is a use
case for this, moving IPv6-capable devices to use IPv6 only.  Can we
relax section 3 to a SHOULD ? 

Bob: I'm not sure. We tried to make it support different environments but
need to see. 

Tim Chown: I would assume legacy devices wouldn't understand the flag
anyway, so it should work. 

Bob: That's a good point. 

Jen Linkova:  That's the whole idea.  New devices will be moved to IPv6
only and old devices will keep IPv4.  This is a suggestion so that they
move to IPv6, and move to IPV6 as much as possible. 

Bob: That's not the way we were thinking about it, but I think it could
be used for that. We could add some text. But it is an IPv6-only link and 
we want to turn off background chatter. 

There were no more questions nor comments.

Ole: Thinking loudly. Do we want to do a further call for this to get it
advanced ?  Let's do a call on that. 

Hum: There were many hums in favor of advancing this document to the
IESG.   No humming was audible in opposition.   Ole will confirm on the
mailing list.


Cheers,
Ole