While I sympathize with the intent of this draft, I don’t understand why it’s being proposed as a standards track document. It doesn’t define any new protocols, nor does it contain any BCP 14 language. Rather, it’s a statement of policy for the IETF. I would suggest that it be published as an Informational RFC rather than standards track.
Thanks,
Andy
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:26 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Sunsetting IPv4 WG (sunset4) to
consider the following document: - 'IETF: End Work on IPv4'
<draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
The IETF will stop working on IPv4, except where needed to mitigate
documented security issues, to facilitate the transition to IPv6, or
to enable IPv4 decommissioning.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-iet f/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-iet f/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
draft-george-ipv6-support: IPv6 Support Within IETF work (None - )