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

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:29:38 -0400

<chair-hat off>
Yes, we should mandate IPv6

<chair-hat on>
In deference to Mark "Don't add anything" Crispin, I would offer we should
be silent (because DUH, everything in the IETF *has* to work with IPv6).
The finesse is to make sure at least ONE example uses IPv6 addressing :-)

On 9/25/07 10:02 AM, "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dave Cridland writes:
>> Speaking as an editor, I'd feel more comfortable adding this if there
>> were visible consensus.
> 
> Noone has replied so far, either in the positive or negative. Zoltán
> replied with a followup question, to which I seemed to have the right
> answer: "mandate only implementation, not deployment".
> 
> I interpret this as mildish agreement, not strong enough to be called
> support. Perhaps Eric or Glenn could ask for a hum in the room at the
> next meeting.
> 
> Arnt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lemonade mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

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

:16 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:29:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [lemonade] Re: profile-bis and ipv6
From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: 

<chair-hat off>
Yes, we should mandate IPv6

<chair-hat on>
In deference to Mark "Don't add anything" Crispin, I would offer we should
be silent (because DUH, everything in the IETF *has* to work with IPv6).
The finesse is to make sure at least ONE example uses IPv6 addressing :-)

On 9/25/07 10:02 AM, "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dave Cridland writes:
>> Speaking as an editor, I'd feel more comfortable adding this if there
>> were visible consensus.
> 
> Noone has replied so far, either in the positive or negative. Zoltán
> replied with a followup question, to which I seemed to have the right
> answer: "mandate only implementation, not deployment".
> 
> I interpret this as mildish agreement, not strong enough to be called
> support. Perhaps Eric or Glenn could ask for a hum in the room at the
> next meeting.
> 
> Arnt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lemonade mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

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

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:36:12 -0700

At 4:02 PM +0200 9/25/07, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>  Noone has replied so far, either in the positive or negative.

I'm concerned with adding burdens for clients.  I don't want to 
encourage IPv4-only implementations, but also don't want a client to 
be non-compliant just because it is running on an IPv4-ony device.

Perhaps profile-bis can have a SHOULD for servers to support IPv6 for 
IMAP and submission, and a non-normative strong recommendation for 
clients to do the same?  For example, "Both IMAP and message 
submission servers SHOULD support both IPv4 and IPv6.  Clients are 
strongly encouraged to support IPv6.  IPv6 support includes numerous 
aspects, such as using AAAA records returned in DNS query results, 
permitting and using IPv6 addresses in configuration information, the 
ability to connect to IPv6 addresses, and for servers, listening on 
IPv6 addresses."

I won't object if people want to make client support also a SHOULD, 
but I want to be sure we've discussed it and it won't be a problem.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.                                     --Oscar Wilde

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:08:29 +0300

Hi all,
email is an application-level protocol, it should work regardless whether IPv4 or IPv6 packets are carrying the data.
Therefore, I am not convinced that Lemonade is the right place to promote IPv6.
Could we just leave all IP version discussions out?
The best we  can do is SHOULD for both IPv4 and IPv6 for both clients and servers anyway - we can't mandate IPv4 for the next 30 years, and we can't mandate IPv6 today either. A SHOULD is not really useful, therefore I suggest we leave IP version discussions out.
Any thoughts?

Best regards: Zoltán Ördögh
E-mail: zoltan dot ordogh at nokia dot com
Phone: +358 50 386 0566

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Randall Gellens [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 16 October, 2007 04:36
>To: [email-masked]
>I'm concerned with adding burdens for clients.  I don't want 
>to encourage IPv4-only implementations, but also don't want a 
>client to be non-compliant just because it is running on an 
>IPv4-ony device.
>
>Perhaps profile-bis can have a SHOULD for servers to support 
>IPv6 for IMAP and submission, and a non-normative strong 
>recommendation for clients to do the same?  For example, "Both 
>IMAP and message submission servers SHOULD support both IPv4 
>and IPv6.  Clients are strongly encouraged to support IPv6.  
>IPv6 support includes numerous aspects, such as using AAAA 
>records returned in DNS query results, permitting and using 
>IPv6 addresses in configuration information, the ability to 
>connect to IPv6 addresses, and for servers, listening on
>IPv6 addresses."
>
>I won't object if people want to make client support also a 
>SHOULD, but I want to be sure we've discussed it and it won't 
>be a problem.
>--
>Randall Gellens

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:11:19 -0700

Hi Zoltan,

At 1:08 AM +0300 10/18/07, <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  email is an application-level protocol, it should work regardless 
> whether IPv4 or IPv6 packets are carrying the data.

It should work either way, but won't work with IPv6 unless both the 
client and the server have taken active steps to support IPv6.  This 
includes the specific items that Arnt mentioned which I used in my 
suggested text.

>  Therefore, I am not convinced that Lemonade is the right place to 

It isn't a question of promoting or evangelizing IPv6 (I agree 
lemonade is not the place to do that).  It's a matter of 
interoperability in IPv6 deployments.

>  The best we  can do is SHOULD for both IPv4 and IPv6 for both 
> clients and servers anyway - we can't mandate IPv4 for the next 30 
> years, and we can't mandate IPv6 today either.

Remember that we are only discussing what needs to be implemented in 
the code, we are not mentioning what is deployed.  In reality, any 
implementation that doesn't support IPv4 won't interoperate with the 
vast majority of implementations.  Likewise, any implementation that 
doesn't support IPv6 is limited to only working with IPv4 
implementations.  This is regardless of what the carriers, ISPs, and 
email providers choose to deploy.

Perhaps this would be better in an update of the deployments draft, 
but I'm a but leery of reopening that document right now.

>  A SHOULD is not really useful, therefore I suggest we leave IP 
> version discussions out.
>  Any thoughts?

Why is a SHOULD not really useful?

-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level
of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.            --Gustave Flaubert

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:30:15 +0200

[email-masked] writes:
> The best we  can do is SHOULD for both IPv4 and IPv6 for both clients 
> and servers anyway - we can't mandate IPv4 for the next 30 years, and 
> we can't mandate IPv6 today either. A SHOULD is not really useful, 
> therefore I suggest we leave IP version discussions out.
> Any thoughts?

Several.

1. Lemonade isn't IMAP or SMTP, which just use a byte stream. For 
example Lemonade profile uses URLs for forward without download. URL 
parsers typically have to know the format of IP addresses. URL 
retrievers typically have to do a DNS lookup and connect the the IP 
address(es) returned. (The latter may not be necessary if there's a 
4468bis, I think it was required more by mistake than by intention).

2. I am not concerned with promoting IPv6 (which is something one 
shouldn't do anyway, IMO), but rather with avoiding hidden little snags 
that would make it harder for sites to transition.

3. Last but not least, when I made the proposal I didn't know that OMA 
already has some sort of IPv6 requirement (in a general document, not 
the mail document). I don't think I would have bothered if I'd known 
that. Maybe I would have suggested an informative sentence in 
profile-bis pointing out the OMA mandate.

Arnt

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:07:00 +0300

Hi Randall,

>Perhaps this would be better in an update of the deployments 
>draft, but I'm a but leery of reopening that document right now.

I was going to suggest the deployments draft myself - the reason I did not because it is well on its way to become an RFC. So, I proposed leaving out these discussions instead.

>Why is a SHOULD not really useful?

Because people will always find a very good reason not to do it.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:16:42 +0300

Hi Arnt,
>1. Lemonade isn't IMAP or SMTP, which just use a byte stream. 
>For example Lemonade profile uses URLs for forward without 
>download. URL parsers typically have to know the format of IP 
>addresses. URL retrievers typically have to do a DNS lookup 
>and connect the the IP
>address(es) returned. (The latter may not be necessary if 
>there's a 4468bis, I think it was required more by mistake 
>than by intention).

Hmmm. I do not think that we have specified whether IPv4 or IPv6 should
be used in URLs to be used with forward without download.
Or, are You proposing to open up the draft and mandate IPv6?

>2. I am not concerned with promoting IPv6 (which is something 
>one shouldn't do anyway, IMO), but rather with avoiding hidden 
>little snags that would make it harder for sites to transition.

I agree.

>3. Last but not least, when I made the proposal I didn't know 
>that OMA already has some sort of IPv6 requirement (in a 
>general document, not the mail document). I don't think I 
>would have bothered if I'd known that. Maybe I would have 
>suggested an informative sentence in profile-bis pointing out 
>the OMA mandate.

I did not have the time to look up the OMA reference. But the question
is: where would we include it? The deployments draft is pretty much a
done deal.

Thank You.