Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

[Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:18 PM
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx>, IESG IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx>, IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 10, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care about IPv4
> anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF.

This is why I was so surprised by the controversy.   Sigh

Unfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the best way to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6 'better' and to sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage.

IPv6 IS the mitigation of the consequences of IPv4 shortage.

But my opinion is well-documented in draft-george-ipv6-support.

The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old strategy. Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the same so that the transition cost is minimal.

It isn't clear to me that a change in strategy is required. To remain on topic, will moving this Experimental RFC to Proposed Standard make the transition any easier?

The goal isn't IPv6, though—the goal is a functioning, interoperable Internet. I believe we have consensus that IPv6 is the best mechanism to achieve that. I think I see consensus that some transition tools are temporarily useful as people wait for others to deploy. Do we need a Proposed Standard for those temporary transition tools?

Lee