Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>              IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes
>                   draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01

The document strives to convey the message that "IP" is no longer
equivalent to "IPv4", which is a goal that I'd fully support.
However, while this is a political statement that the IETF really should
make, i have a large amount of scepticism that the document, as
it is written, can successfully convey the message to the desired
target audience.

For one, i share the concerns raised by others that "updating" various
old RFCs is not the right way to go.  First, the documents technically
are not in need of an update (e.g., because RFC 1812 pretty clearly
states that it deals with v4 routers only). Second, changing sentences
or phrases in existing documents, although not without precedent, isn't
best IETF style. This is especially dubious w.r.t. RFC 4084, BCP 104.

Most importantly, though, the updates to existing documents are so
sophisticated and so highly likely to be overread that I'd not see
anybody who managed to remain unaware until today to now follow suit.
It feels a bit like giving purchase departments, or maybe even
legal departments a lever to defeat claims that a product is "IP capable"
when it indeed is IPv4 only.

In that context, these two statements

>       New IP implementations MUST support IPv6.
>
>       Current IP implementations SHOULD support IPv6.

appear especially interesting. What divides implementations into "new"
and "current" and what's the purpose of stating requirements for
"current" implementations, assuming an intuitive meaning of the word?

I'd agree the IETF (and other I* bodies) have a point in making
strong statements about IPv6 adoption, but the IETF has traditionally
abstained from addressing individual false claims of "RFC compliance".
To that extent i do not see how this would be different for the draft
in Last Call.  For the really agnostic, it also isn't too helpful
since RFCs 1812 and 1122 are of lesser concern.  Documents like RIPE-501,
although not ideal, provide much better guidance.

In summary, if the core message is "IP != IPv4" then i believe the
text isn't crisp enough; if it were bullets for legal/purchase, i do not
see the point.

-Peter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]