On 05/10/2017 01:38, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 9/29/2017 6:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> First of all, I agree with those who have said this should be >> a BCP, if published. BCPs are the way we publish IETF process >> rules. > A BCP with the right tone and focus might be useful. > >> Secondly, I think many of the comments about the tone and slant >> are correct. What we want to stop is work on solutions that >> are *specific* to IPv4, and to chase down and elminate any >> cases where successful IPv6 operation depends on the presence >> of IPv4. > > I disagree. > > We need to consider IPv4 work as "maintenance mode", which can easily > include solo IPv4 adjustments and/or include IPv4 support in new > protocols that also support IPv6. Neither necessarily need involve > transition or deprecation. I'm not sure that we disagree modulo wordsmithing. Saying that IPv4 is in maintenance mode is fine. Security and bug fixes are clearly maintenance. > "no new work" or "no IPv4-specific work" both assume that IPv6 is a > superset of IPv4, which it is not. I don't see that assumption either stated or implied. If there are features missing in IPv6, that's a completely separate topic. > We're still wrangling with aspects of > IPv6 that actually are evolving back into IPv4-like approaches, e.g., > limits to the length of the header chain and problems supporting > fragment traversal of routers. I don't see what that has to do with the draft under discussion. Regards Brian