From: "t.petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Reply-to: daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the Internet to publish it. ____________ WEG] well, I find the vehemence of your statement a bit bizarre, but I would like to address your concerns if possible. Please explain how a recommendation to support IPv6 is going to "seriously damage the internet." The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4 is fine, the sort of statement that the IAB should make, or have made, as an RFC or in some other form. ____________ WEG] Agree. IETF has remained version-agnostic for some time now. But they have not made anything like the statement that this draft makes, which is that IPv6 will be necessary because IPv4 is going to have difficulties in continuing to provide the same level of service post-exhaustion. In the authors' opinions, it is long overdue as guidance to implementers, so we made the statement in the hopes that we'd reach consensus, which in a way is a stronger statement than something coming out of the IAB anyway. But this I-D claims " Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the Internet Protocol suite by itself. " IPv4 is a phenomenal success, and RFC1122 is a key part of that. IPv4 was a confused jumble, as IPv6 is now, and RFC1122, with another two or so I-Ds, cut through the cruft and rendered it usable. IPv6 desparately needs an equivalent to RFC1122, as a trawl of the v6ops list archives shows, and clearly this I-D is never going to be it, but claiming that this I-D provides an update to RFC1122, coupled with its title, gives the message that there is not going to be such an I-D; IPv6 will remain a confused jumble (and so is unlikely ever to emulate the success of IPv4). ___________ WEG] Ignoring for a moment the commentary on the state of the IPv6 RFCs vs IPv4, and the need for a "rosetta stone," I'll note that the choice to update several IP(v4) RFCs was something that has been controversial based on Intarea LC feedback as well, but we believed necessary to provide the linkage between the two. Honestly, I would have rather seen IETF issue formal updates to the existing "IP" RFCs to include IPv6, rather than building an entirely parallel set of documents, but here we are, so we made a choice. It would be helpful to understand whether your resistance to this document is solely due to the decision to have this be standards track, to update several existing RFCs, or both vs the general recommendation that implementers should support IPv6. While I believe that removing the update references will reduce the impact of the document, I am not opposed to issuing a new version of the document that does so and keeps to simply documenting the requirements for IPv6 support if consensus supports that action. Thanks Wes George 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. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf