On 02/10/17 09:09, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hmm. Begins to seem like a good fit for the shepherd write-up, though... Maybe. I'd be fine if the IESG had a policy that anything that is IPv4-only has to be explicitly justified, either via text in the relevant draft (or charter), or as part of a shepherd write up. (Note though, that such a policy could, and I hope would, be a fine precedent if someone proposed a policy relating to privacy invasive technologies also requiring explicit justification - that is a reason I'd support such a policy for IPv4-only text but that might not work for other folks.) S. > > Eliot > > > On 10/2/17 9:54 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> On 02/10/17 08:43, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: >>> We should also remember that the community has been more resistant to >>> adding mandatory sections to all RFCs in recent years, so, there's that. >> I don't think an IPv4 Considerations section is a good idea. Unlike >> security considerations, it should be almost always empty and so it >> would just be more bureaucratic boilerplate, and hence a bad idea. >> >> I also had a read of the document itself and agree with the comments >> that the tone is wrong. To add one more example, the opening sentence >> of section 1 says "The IETF has developed IPv6 to replace IPv4." I >> agree that is a true statement. However it is also pretty misleading >> as I believe many IETF participants do not now believe that IPv6 will >> replace all IPv4 traffic in say the next two decades. I do however >> agree that we ought stop adding features to IPv4 that don't work for >> IPv6, but the text of the statement needs significant work still. >> >> S. >> > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature