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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Set aside that we will develop IPv6 as necessary. I am sure we will do that.

I can see lots of down side in making this declaration, which may be 
interpreted as we intend, but more likely as others with political or 
commercial ambition spin it.

Making this statement has the potential to develop into a huge inter-SDO 
fight.

I am not at all clear on the upside.

We should make declarations about IPv6, but remain silent on IPv4.

- Stewart

On 28/09/2017 17:18, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> From: sunset4 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Phillip Hallam-Baker 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:34 AM
> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, IETF-Announce 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [sunset4] Last Call: 
> <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to 
> Proposed Standard
>
>     I remain opposed for the reason I gave last time this was
>     proposed: The IETF should retain control of IPv4 and any statement
>     to the effect that the IETF will no longer work on IPv4 will
>     inevitably lead to formation of an IPv4 legacy standards group in
>     competition with IETF.
>
>
> That would be an interesting development. But the document is hard to 
> interpret as “The IETF has abdicated responsibility for IPv4.” For 
> instance, the third sentence:
> Until the time when IPv4 is no longer in
>     wide use and/or declared historic, the IETF needs to continue to
>     update IPv4-only protocols and features for vital operational or
>     security issues.
> Similarly:
> Some changes may be necessary in IPv4 protocols to
>     facilitate decommissioning IPv4 in a way that does not create
>     unacceptable impact to applications or users.
> And also:
> The IESG will review proposed working group charters to ensure that 
> work will be capable of operating without IPv4, except in cases of 
> IPv4 security, transition, and decommissioning work.
> Finally, looking at the number of times we have actually Updated 
> RFC791 "INTERNET PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM PROTOCOL 
> SPECIFICATION” (four times, if I recall correctly) suggests to me that 
> a competing standards body created for the purpose of updating IPv4 
> would find itself with little to do.
>
>
>     Like it or not, FORTRAN and COBOL are still in common use a full
>     40 years after they were functionally obsolete. I see no reason to
>     believe that anyone will need more than 32 bits of addressing for
>     their home network. There being no compelling reason for my coffee
>     pot to be able to talk to the entire Internet, I have a compelling
>     reason to prevent it doing so.
>
>     Rather than sunset IPv4, I would sunset IPv4 as an Internet
>     protocol and relegate it to use as a network protocol only.
>
>
> Then change the name to NPv4?
>
> Do we care what people do on their private networks? Is it any of our 
> business?
>
> Lee
>