Re: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

rfc6540?
"IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes²

Lee

On 4/6/16, 6:33 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>I recall there was a document, hopefully turned into RFC, a few years
>ago, stating that any future work in IETF must support IPv6 unless
>clearly is an IPv4-only protocol. But can¹t find that document Š
>
>If I¹m correct and that document exist, what about reviewing that one to
>include also now the mandatory IPv6 examples ?
>
>Saludos,
>Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: sunset4 <[e-mail]> en nombre de "George, Wes"
><[e-mail]>
>Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>Fecha: miércoles, 6 de abril de 2016, 11:59
>Para: Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]>,
>"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>Asunto: Re: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples
>
>>Speaking as an individual:
>>
>>You'd think this wouldn't be controversial, but I'm not convinced that
>>this sort of bureaucratic formatting rule is really the right solution to
>>get IETF as a whole more focused on IPv6 and reinforcing the idea that
>>IPv4 is now a legacy protocol. Yes, increasing exposure and familiarity
>>with IPv6 addresses by using them more consistently is a good thing, and
>>it seems harmless to suggest that we do this, but it's the word mandate
>>that bothers me.
>>
>>A mandate implies that there is some sort of recourse to force it to be
>>changed if people don't comply, and a question of who enforces it - the
>>IESG? The RFC editor? IDNITs check? The document shepherd? Making this a
>>suggestion means that it is something that is enforced via people looking
>>at drafts during reviews, WGLC, IETF LC, etc and asking, "is there any
>>reason why these examples are IPv4?" and failing any acceptable
>>justification, suggesting that they update the examples with the current
>>protocol version. I think this is very similar to what happens when
>>people
>>use randomly chosen IP addresses or ASNs for examples instead of the
>>proper documentation ones - someone points out that a change needs to be
>>made, and we all move on. That might mean that it doesn't actually need
>>to
>>progress as an RFC, having served its purpose as an I-D to start the
>>discussion.
>>It's also possible that the right place for this is in the RFC style
>>guide, though that's probably a longer discussion since as far as I can
>>tell, the style guide does not currently have any recommendation about
>>use
>>of documentation addresses, no references to RFC 6890, etc. and so adding
>>a discussion about which *type* of documentation addresses to use might
>>be
>>going too far.
>>
>>
>>To the content of the document:
>>From a strict RFC2119 normative keyword interpretation, I'm don't think
>>that MUST is the right word here, since you caveat that MUST with
>>"unless..."
>>MUST doesn't have exceptions. SHOULD and MAY do.
>>So I think you probably want a "SHOULD... unless". And there's also the
>>problem that 2119 words are, by strictest interpretation, intended to
>>describe behavior that is required for interoperability, not "eat your
>>vegetables" imperatives, and people tend to raise objections to their use
>>in the latter way. Not saying that there aren't documents that use 2119 a
>>little off-label, but the burden of justification is higher.
>>Perhaps RFC 6919 is a better choice for your normative keywords? :-)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Wes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 4/6/16, 7:53 AM, "sunset4 on behalf of Andrei Robachevsky"
>><[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I recently submitted an I-D
>>>draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00.txt, mandating use
>>>of IPv6 in examples in RFCs.
>>>
>>>I was reading some pretty recent drafts and noticed that authors
>>>continue using IPv4 in their examples. This is probably more convenient,
>>>but is not really forward thinking. Also, the prevalence of IPv6
>>>examples will send a strong message that IPv4 is essentially a legacy
>>>protocol.
>>>
>>>I wonder if this WG is interested in progressing this document as a WG
>>>item.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Andrei
>>>
>>>
>>>> Name:draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples
>>>> Revision:00
>>>> Title:Mandating use of IPv6 in examples
>>>> Document date:2016-03-21
>>>> Group:Individual Submission
>>>> Pages:3
>>>> URL:
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of
>>>>-i
>>>>pv6-examples-00.txt
>>>> Status:
>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv
>>>>6-
>>>>examples/
>>>> Htmlized:
>>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-exa
>>>>mp
>>>>les-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>    IPv6 is a successor of the legacy IPv4 protocol.  This document
>>>>    mandates use of IPv6 in examples provided in RFCs.
>>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
>>to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
>>solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
>>If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
>>notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
>>in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
>>strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
>>E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
>>delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>>_______________________________________________
>>sunset4 mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>sunset4 mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4