I recall there was a document, hopefully turned into RFC, a few years ago, stating that any future work in IETF must support IPv6 unless clearly is an IPv4-only protocol. But can’t find that document …
If I’m correct and that document exist, what about reviewing that one to include also now the mandatory IPv6 examples ? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: sunset4 <[email protected]> en nombre de "George, Wes" <[email protected]> Responder a: <[email protected]> Fecha: miércoles, 6 de abril de 2016, 11:59 Para: Andrei Robachevsky <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples >Speaking as an individual: > >You'd think this wouldn't be controversial, but I'm not convinced that >this sort of bureaucratic formatting rule is really the right solution to >get IETF as a whole more focused on IPv6 and reinforcing the idea that >IPv4 is now a legacy protocol. Yes, increasing exposure and familiarity >with IPv6 addresses by using them more consistently is a good thing, and >it seems harmless to suggest that we do this, but it's the word mandate >that bothers me. > >A mandate implies that there is some sort of recourse to force it to be >changed if people don't comply, and a question of who enforces it - the >IESG? The RFC editor? IDNITs check? The document shepherd? Making this a >suggestion means that it is something that is enforced via people looking >at drafts during reviews, WGLC, IETF LC, etc and asking, "is there any >reason why these examples are IPv4?" and failing any acceptable >justification, suggesting that they update the examples with the current >protocol version. I think this is very similar to what happens when people >use randomly chosen IP addresses or ASNs for examples instead of the >proper documentation ones - someone points out that a change needs to be >made, and we all move on. That might mean that it doesn't actually need to >progress as an RFC, having served its purpose as an I-D to start the >discussion. >It's also possible that the right place for this is in the RFC style >guide, though that's probably a longer discussion since as far as I can >tell, the style guide does not currently have any recommendation about use >of documentation addresses, no references to RFC 6890, etc. and so adding >a discussion about which *type* of documentation addresses to use might be >going too far. > > >To the content of the document: >From a strict RFC2119 normative keyword interpretation, I'm don't think >that MUST is the right word here, since you caveat that MUST with >"unless..." >MUST doesn't have exceptions. SHOULD and MAY do. >So I think you probably want a "SHOULD... unless". And there's also the >problem that 2119 words are, by strictest interpretation, intended to >describe behavior that is required for interoperability, not "eat your >vegetables" imperatives, and people tend to raise objections to their use >in the latter way. Not saying that there aren't documents that use 2119 a >little off-label, but the burden of justification is higher. >Perhaps RFC 6919 is a better choice for your normative keywords? :-) > >Thanks, > >Wes > > > > >On 4/6/16, 7:53 AM, "sunset4 on behalf of Andrei Robachevsky" ><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I recently submitted an I-D >>draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00.txt, mandating use >>of IPv6 in examples in RFCs. >> >>I was reading some pretty recent drafts and noticed that authors >>continue using IPv4 in their examples. This is probably more convenient, >>but is not really forward thinking. Also, the prevalence of IPv6 >>examples will send a strong message that IPv4 is essentially a legacy >>protocol. >> >>I wonder if this WG is interested in progressing this document as a WG >>item. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Andrei >> >> >>> Name:draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples >>> Revision:00 >>> Title:Mandating use of IPv6 in examples >>> Document date:2016-03-21 >>> Group:Individual Submission >>> Pages:3 >>> URL: >>>https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-i >>>pv6-examples-00.txt >>> Status: >>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6- >>>examples/ >>> Htmlized: >>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examp >>>les-00 >>> >>> >>> Abstract: >>> IPv6 is a successor of the legacy IPv4 protocol. This document >>> mandates use of IPv6 in examples provided in RFCs. >> > > >________________________________ > >This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable >proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to >copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for >the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not >the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any >dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the >contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be >unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender >immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail >and any printout. >_______________________________________________ >sunset4 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4 > _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
