Re: [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard

[David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Lee Howard <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: sunset4 <sunset4-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:34 AM
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <sunset4@xxxxxxxx>, <sunset4-chairs@xxxxxxxx>, <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf@ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>, <terry.manderson@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard

I remain opposed for the reason I gave last time this was proposed: The IETF should retain control of IPv4 and any statement to the effect that the IETF will no longer work on IPv4 will inevitably lead to formation of an IPv4 legacy standards group in competition with IETF.

That would be an interesting development. But the document is hard to interpret as “The IETF has abdicated responsibility for IPv4.” For instance, the third sentence:

Until the time when IPv4 is no longer in
   wide use and/or declared historic, the IETF needs to continue to
   update IPv4-only protocols and features for vital operational or
   security issues.

Similarly:

Some changes may be necessary in IPv4 protocols to
   facilitate decommissioning IPv4 in a way that does not create
   unacceptable impact to applications or users. 

And also:

   The IESG will review proposed working group charters to ensure
      that work will be capable of operating without IPv4, except in
      cases of IPv4 security, transition, and decommissioning work.

However the document title does say "IETF: End Work on IPv4", and the abstract starts with "The IETF will stop working on IPv4".  Many people might never get past the title and abstract, they easily will be left with the wrong impression. I seriously doubt most politicians would get much past the title and abstract.

I have to say, the current title sure makes it sound like work is going to stop cold-turkey on IPv4. Maybe the title and abstract need a little more nuance like the body of the text has.

How about something more like this;

Title

   IETF: Limiting New Work on IPv4

Abstract

   The IETF will limit new work on IPv4, except where needed to mitigate
   documented security issues, to facilitate the transition to IPv6, or
   to enable the eventual decommissioning of IPv4 on some networks.

Thanks.

--

===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota  
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================