rfc6540? "IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes² Lee
On 4/6/16, 6:33 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >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 can¹t find that document > >If I¹m 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-ipv >>>>6- >>>>examples/ >>>> Htmlized: >>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-exa >>>>mp >>>>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 _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
