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

From: Jacques Latour <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:16:32 +0000

I think we need to be very specific to mention where the focus is applied, either in on the global Internet or on the Network {internal, home, corporate}.

Saying we're shutting down IPv4 scares a lot of people but that's not in scope because on the Network (internally) come to mind right away. The focus is on the Internet.

Abstract
 
  The IETF has stopped working on IPv4 protocol only solutions that are specific to global Internet.
  The IETF has stopped working on IPv4 protocol solutions except where needed to mitigate documented security issues.
  The IETF has not stopped working on IPv4 protocol solutions to facilitate the transition to IPv6, or to enable IPv4 decommissioning on the global Internet.
  The IETF has no 'plans' to decommission the IPv4 protocol on the Network {internal, home, corporate}.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 05:38:45 -0700

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.

"no new work" or "no IPv4-specific work" both assume that IPv6 is a
superset of IPv4, which it is not. 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.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:18:02 +1300

> 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.
 
> 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

I don't see what that has to do with the draft under discussion.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 05:30:14 -0700

> 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.

> 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

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 08:43:11 -0700

Hello,

I'll disclose that there is a potential conflict of interest and I am 
involved in a RIR [1].

At 06:26 AM 28-09-2017, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Sunsetting IPv4 WG (sunset4) to
>consider the following document: - 'IETF: End Work on IPv4'
>   <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2017-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be

I read this short draft and the document shepherd write-up.  The 
explanation about why the document should be published as a "Proposed 
Standard" is that "it creates key implications on all future 
standards track documents".  Is that what the "Proposed Standard" 
label is about?

There is the following in Section 1: "Until the time when IPv4 is no 
longer inwide use and/or declared historic ..."  It is unrealistic to 
envision a near future where the IETF would "declare" IPv4 as "Historic".

I'll commend the author for not overloading the "must" in this 
draft.  Is this document about the IETF not doing any more work on 
IPv4-related technologies unless there is a security issue to fix and 
there is consensus [2] to do that?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Please do not read the disclosure as a statement from the RIR.  My 
interest predates the RIR involvement.
2. Please see Section 2 of the draft.