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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 04 October 2017 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
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 6BAC21323B8; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 05:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 gW7j4DVEHR4e; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 83126126BF0; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=O1mWDqtXBm2H5XELed1Kli2+Z4w9tWha0VlVYdx74zU=; b=fW1PsMT+Hmw+vY5Fjdn9wGPTs BGsbn847hnZnOjSWBo385EWKT2XM0R8sDg6CSjSRyyJEYcdAeXcRKKfd64k0wgJqa2AFxCs2WnkAS JyTHCAYdbgc/u+jrXdTG0Ec3IENtRLxTHj78gtcCFLP7SCYWCCjWpX4esvD1fmJ9uudyMMmGA+fAK tBJDHLmfLUytOlT0QNdBoQ+YEVwV/X0VB5wZnSZBmRghC02Bd3EVufur2J7nBkYLxKUk3j+kn0hz+ mEXPyVgx/bcrhOgqscprjwxY+lyWIy8UiCCBEE2EgBDGj4lL3uSot9v+cegcjSd52pLvMFdhJxJDb CoUdDk6lQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:50961 helo=[192.168.1.189]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1dziwq-002oHl-9w; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:38:49 -0400
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Cc: sunset4-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf@ietf.org, sunset4@ietf.org
References: <150660518277.13796.5801483741214576151.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e007e7cd-7df8-bd9a-98d2-956d08fa4307@gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <0766e92f-9b1d-d59e-5395-8c05c745f3b1@strayalpha.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 05:38:45 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e007e7cd-7df8-bd9a-98d2-956d08fa4307@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E37E4A2353D21693C84991CF"
Content-Language: en-US
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/uQLb6G1zYBmmeOzXYkn0jVlyC7o>
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: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 12:38:50 -0000


On 9/29/2017 6:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> First of all, I agree with those who have said this should be
> a BCP, if published. BCPs are the way we publish IETF process
> rules.
A BCP with the right tone and focus might be useful.

> Secondly, I think many of the comments about the tone and slant
> are correct. What we want to stop is work on solutions that
> are *specific* to IPv4, and to chase down and elminate any
> cases where successful IPv6 operation depends on the presence
> of IPv4.

I disagree.

We need to consider IPv4 work as "maintenance mode", which can easily
include solo IPv4 adjustments and/or include IPv4 support in new
protocols that also support IPv6. Neither necessarily need involve
transition or deprecation.

"no new work" or "no IPv4-specific work" both assume that IPv6 is a
superset of IPv4, which it is not. We're still wrangling with aspects of
IPv6 that actually are evolving back into IPv4-like approaches, e.g.,
limits to the length of the header chain and problems supporting
fragment traversal of routers.

Joe