Subject: [lemonade] Re: profile-bis and ipv6

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:30:19 +0200

I wrote this to the esteemed profile-bis authors privately:

>> Hi,
>>
>> I think you should add "must support ipv6" to lemonade profile-bis:
>>
>> - clients MUST understand AAAA records in DNS lookup results
>> - if a client or server uses IP addresses in local configuration 
>> files or elsewhere then it MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses 
>> there
>> - servers MUST be able to listen on IPv6 addresses
>> - clients MUST be able to connect to IPv6 addresses
>> - clients MAY prefer either IPv4 or IPv6 if both are available for a 
>> given server
>>
>> It's too late to pretend we live in an IPv4-only world. I will not be 
>> shocked if the IANA runs out of addresses next year, and next year 
>> is _soon_. (I know most people expect it to happen in 2009 or 2010, 
>> but I think there's >10% probability that the IANA runs out before 
>> Christmas 2008.)

Dave agrees, but suggested that I raise it on the list.

Arnt

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:48:19 +0100

On Wed Aug 29 09:30:19 2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>>> files or elsewhere then it MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6 
>>> addresses there
>>> - clients MAY prefer either IPv4 or IPv6 if both are available 
>>> for a given server
>>> 
>>> It's too late to pretend we live in an IPv4-only world. I will 
>>> not be shocked if the IANA runs out of addresses next year, and 
>>> next year is _soon_. (I know most people expect it to happen in 
>>> 2009 or 2010, but I think there's >10% probability that the IANA 
>>> runs out before Christmas 2008.)
> 

For the record, I said that I agree with the sentiment, and I also 
noted that mobile operating systems in general appear to be IPv6 
capable. (Symbian seems to have the support, for example).

Something I didn't point out to Arnt was that, currently, the Profile 
itself doesn't mandate anything on clients - the most we have is a 
SHOULD. In the case where a target operating system, or simply a 
target device, doesn't support IPv6, a MUST will be impossible to 
implement, so SHOULD is quite likely to be a better level.

I'm happy to mandate it for servers, bearing in mind that we're only 
dealing with IMAP and Submission ports here, not full IPv6 MTAs, 
which would be substantially more work.

Speaking as an editor, I'd feel more comfortable adding this if there 
were visible consensus.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:12:34 +0200

Dave Cridland writes:
> SHOULD.

IMO that's because noone felt it necessary to say things like "MUST 
support IMAP over TCP".

Perhaps SHOULD is enough. I'm not sure I care about SHOULD vs. MUST.

> In the case where a target operating system, or simply a target 
> device, doesn't support IPv6, a MUST will be impossible to implement, 
> so SHOULD is quite likely to be a better level.

I phrased my suggested MUSTs so that individual devices and connections 
don't matter (if DHCP or PPP gives you only an IPv4 address, that's 
OK), but target operating systems are required to support IPv6 (e.g. a 
mail reader cannot fail to compile, link or install merely because it 
uses an IPv6 API).

Arnt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:59:36 +0100

Dave Cridland wrote:

>>>> - clients MAY prefer either IPv4 or IPv6 if both are available for 
>>>> a given server
>>>>
>>>> It's too late to pretend we live in an IPv4-only world. I will not 
>>>> be shocked if the IANA runs out of addresses next year, and next 
>>>> year is _soon_. (I know most people expect it to happen in 2009 or 
>>>> 2010, but I think there's >10% probability that the IANA runs out 
>>>> before Christmas 2008.)
>>>

Historically we didn't put any requirements on clients. A client 
implementing IMAP IDLE can claim to be Lemonade compliant ...

> dealing with IMAP and Submission ports here, not full IPv6 MTAs, which 
> would be substantially more work.

+1.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:10:29 -0500

Hi,

The OMA has a general requirement that all enablers be IPv6 compliant.
>From the OMA perspective, if its not specifically mentioned in
profile-bis, we will have to include this requirement on top of
profile-bis. 

I would support adding ipv6 compliance to profile bis as described by
Arnt.

Thanks, 
Dorothy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:00 AM
> To: Dave Cridland
> Cc: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service 
> enivronments
> Subject: Re: [lemonade] Re: profile-bis and ipv6
> 
> Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> Historically we didn't put any requirements on clients. A 
> client implementing IMAP IDLE can claim to be Lemonade compliant ...
>