On 10/2/2017 7:57 AM, R. Atkinson wrote: > All, > > 1. My guess is that most folks agree with the principle of not undertaking new IPv4-only work. I, for one, do not. There may be a time when we can deprecate IPv4 this way, but that time has not arrived. IPv4 remains in very active use and there are plenty of ways in which new IPv4-related work could be important beyond the specific areas of security, transitioning, or decommissioning. While I agree that new IPv4 work should not be the focus of the IETF, it's entirely possible that new work ion other protocols will be need to support *both* IPv4 and IPv6 (without direct involvement in transitioning) or that there will be IPv4-specific enhancements that are useful beyond the limited areas above. I see no good reason for the proclamations in draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf, and I agree with Ran's assessment below of the quality of this doc. Joe (continued from Ran:) > 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 >