R. Atkinson wrote: > 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. +1 >From a higher level point of view, I'm struggling to understand what concrete problem publishing draft-ietf-sunset-4-ipv6-ietf (or something similar) will fix. If the IETF feels that it needs a mission statement about ipv6 and a statement requiring protocol parity / equivalence between ipv4 and ipv6, then that would be more useful. Nick