Subject: Re: [sunset4] Declaring IPv4 Historic
From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:35:47 +0100
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>

On 3/16/16, 7:26 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of Tassos Chatzithomaoglou"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>I support the idea of this draft, but...
>>    The IETF does not update Historic RFCs.  Therefore, the IETF will no
>>    longer work on IPv4 technologies, including transition technologies.
>...i would like to see included some clarifications about the transition
>technologies.
>It seems risky to "abandon" softwires/behave work without having good
>exposure on operators.
>It's like we assume that everything transition-related will either work
>fine or won't be needed.

This is one of the most common comments I¹ve gotten so far. I do think
there¹s operational experience with all of the major transition
technologies, but they¹re all still fairly new.

What would folks think of modifying the statement from:
   the IETF will no
   longer work on IPv4 technologies, including transition technologies.

To:
   the IETF will no
   longer develop new IPv4 technologies, including IPv4-IPv6 transition
technologies. 

I¹d like to get across the idea that new development will be in IPv6, not
IPv4. The IPv4 spec itself won¹t be updated at all (once it¹s Historic),
but transition technologies could be revised for operational and security
reasons. Also, I feel pretty strongly (but will listen to consensus) that
it¹s too late to develop any new transition (or life-extension)
technologies. 

>
>Also i would to have more information about the draft's effect on DHCP
>and any new options may come out.

What would you like it to say?
Can we stop it with new DHCP (v4) options, and just put them in IPv6? Do
we need to list all IPv4-specific protocols and technologies and specify
whether they can be revised?

>
>--
>Tassos

Thanks,

Lee