+1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people go defensive - it isn't saying "IPv4 is evil" or anything silly like that, it's just saying "IPv6 is the future". RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't ready for it yet, but draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is a step on the way. Regards Brian On 2011-08-23 08:54, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the >> Internet to publish it. > > This seems a little ... extreme. The document appears to me to be Mostly > Harmless, with all that implies. > >> 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. > >> 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, > > Complete agreement on this point. Such a document, informed by actual IPv6 > deployment experience at some sort of scale, is urgently needed. And this most > certainly is NOT that document. But unless publishing this is seen as meeting > the need for an 1122v6 - and I've seen no indication that's the case - I fail > to see the harm. > > OTOH, if this really is seen as being a 1122v6, then I join you in opposing > it's publication. > >> 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). > > Maybe I'm being clueless about this, but I don't see how "IPv6 Support Required > for all IP-capable nodes" gives this impression. > > Ned > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf