IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Sat, 30 September 2017 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E351321DC; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 02:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 e3p_d2KkQVJL; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 02:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253A01329F9; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 02:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 46C3F31D12; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 11:48:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C62619000B; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 11:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 11:45:57 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf@ietf.org, sunset4@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170930094557.hmhcgsjoagfq52xv@sources.org>
References: <150660518277.13796.5801483741214576151.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01ce01d33887$b8c3b390$2a4b1ab0$@olddog.co.uk> <66239ec4-8fb0-15a5-6433-bb8decea96f2@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <66239ec4-8fb0-15a5-6433-bb8decea96f2@cisco.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.1
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/fHoFOEPR_-_U4tU3U0P8nO3HRsQ>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sunset4/>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 09:48:12 -0000

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:08:19PM +0200,
 Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote 
 a message of 418 lines which said:

> I have these questions:
> 
>  1. If I wish to add a new DHCPv4 option as well as a similar DHCPv6
>     iption, would that contravene the intent of this document?
>  2. If I wish to add a field that would permit IPv4 addresses and IPv6
>     addresses, would that contravene the intent of this document?

For me, section 1 of the draft is crystal-clear "No IPv4-only feature
will be added unless there's an equivalent feature added in the IPv6
version." Which means the answer is No to your two questions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email