Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard

[Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/4/2017 3:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

"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.

I was arguing against new wording that might use the quotes above. IMO, the current doc is even more restrictive.

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.

It was intended as an example of how IPv6 is not a superset of IPv4.

Joe