All,
1. My guess is that most folks agree with the principle of not undertaking new IPv4-only work.
2. Similarly, if the IESG were to adopt a practice/policy (if they haven’t already done so)
that IPv4-only work on the IETF-Track required an IESG exception, then I think
most folks here would be fine with that.
3. Many networks will need to be dual-stack (IPv4 + IPv6) for many years to come.
This is a practical reality, even though it is inconvenient and politically incorrect.
So there likely will be specific areas where work that applies both to IPv4 and IPv6
will need to be undertaken both now and in the foreseeable future. This ought not
conflict with (1) above.
Discussion:
————————
The particular I-D (draft-ietf-sunset-4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt) is not sufficiently clearly written,
if it is trying to achieve either of the objectives (1-3) above. I think many folks would like
to see at least both the title and abstract re-worked, probably the whole draft reworked,
to make it more clear that the objective is to discontinue most IETF IPv4-only work.
Certainly, I would want the title, the abstract, and the rest of the document to be edited
to have a consistent, clear, and non-inflammatory message consistent with (1-3) above.
I have to agree with Stephen Farrell that the best we can hope for in this are is to avoid
“most” IPv4-only work, on grounds that if a major issue (e.g., security) arose in some
IPv4-specific specification, then the IETF ought to address/resolve that IPv4-unique issue.
However, if the IETF tries to take a hard line that no new IPv4 work is allowed, then the
practical result will be that some other standards body will simply do IPv4-unique work
outside the IETF (in practice; de facto) — which would be a very bad outcome, both for
interoperability and for global standards cooperation.
Yours,
Ran