Re: [v6ops] Sunset4 gap analysis: rfc6555bis, ipv6rtr-reqs, rfc7084-bis

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> However, if we don’t want to touch RFC7084, seems to me difficult that we
> can do it in a “transition” only document.

<bhs> I disagree. I think it would actually be easier in a "transition" only document. Such a document could easily have a requirement along the lines of:
If no WAN IPv4 connectivity is present (native or through one of the technologies in this document), the CE Router MUST ...
I'm not sure what it must do, though. 
I don't think the solution involves IPv6 signaling, and putting LAN-facing IPv4 protocol requirements in RFC7084bis would be problematic. But it would not be a problem in a "transition" doc. - Barbara</bhs>
 
> So, do we want to re-consider this decision again?
> 
> My plan, if time permits, is to update either one or the other document next
> week.
> 
> Regarding 6&7, I actually provided text on that to the authors, and one of my
> comments was in the direction of RFC6555-bis can somehow sort out those,
> but the actual text is still based in RFC6555 until RFC6555-bis become an RFC,
> in order to avoid “holding” draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-09, so all depends
> on how fast we move with one or the other …
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Lee Howard
> <[e-mail]> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de agosto de 2017, 18:28
> Para: <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: [v6ops] Sunset4 gap analysis: rfc6555bis, ipv6rtr-reqs, rfc7084-bis
> 
>     Reading through draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-09 it seemed to me that
> several problems might be resolvable in documents we currently have open:
> 
>     Can problems 1-5 (indicating that IPv4 is unavailable, disabling IPv4 in the
> LAN) be addressed with recommendations in any, some, or all of:
>     draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-00 "Requirements for IPv6 Routers"
>     draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-04  “Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer
> Edge Routers"
>     Or other drafts under discussion in v6ops now?
>     Or do we need new IPv6 signalling (RA?) that IPv4 is unavailable? That
> would have to go to 6man. Or did we do this, and I’ve forgotten in my old
> age?
> 
> 
> 
>     Are problems 6 & 7 (Happy Eyeballs and getaddrinfo()) addressed with
> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-03,  "Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better
> Connectivity Using Concurrency”?
>     Can problem 10 be addressed in rfc6555-bis?
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>     Lee
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=uzccVE3XgWpcpFGMQ9qjF-IGi6Zg7wpOm1T1oN-
> RUZs&s=dAnqF0IWAIbz3_wvZSm5SBJqvGGRswIj4npGtJaP-7M&e=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__www.consulintel.es&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=uzccVE3XgWpcpFGMQ9qjF-IGi6Zg7wpOm1T1oN-
> RUZs&s=NHx1lFPeZQ13ZFQKRHpvNfx1vTbjumaqKvbhuzNebE0&e=
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s)
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
> including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=uzccVE3XgWpcpFGMQ9qjF-IGi6Zg7wpOm1T1oN-
> RUZs&s=dAnqF0IWAIbz3_wvZSm5SBJqvGGRswIj4npGtJaP-7M&e=