Re: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

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 can’t find that document …

If I’m 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-ipv6-
>>>examples/
>>> Htmlized:
>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examp
>>>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
>