On 10/09/2017 04:08 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Uma,
At 10:14 AM 09-10-2017, Uma Chunduri wrote:
[Uma]: I am not sure what do you mean by "Privacy requirements
redefined". Today in
I was commenting on the text from the proposed charter. There are one
or more RFCs which discusses about privacy.
[Uma]: What's the relevance of the same here. IDEAS is not seeking
to change any type of LOC information used in ID/LOC protocols...
this is governed by ID/LOC protocol in use. It could be IPv4 or
(mostly) IPv6.
IDEAS doesn't alter or won't come into picture outside
of ID/LOC protocol context.
If the IETF were to decide that it will stop doing IPv4 work except
for maintenance, should the working group be allowed to add in support
for IPv4?
Unfortunately, a technology that intentionally breaks IPv4 will not get
deployed. It needs to give a 'nod' to backwards compatiblity. A part of
me would really like to come up with the 'killer protocol' that everyone
needs but just can't EVER be made to work with IPv4, so sorry world, you
just have to get over it (IPv4). If you want something to fit into
factories, you have to work around IPv4. It will be interesting to see
how 6TISCH works out there (with 4in6?)...
Bob