From: sunset4 <[email protected]> on behalf of Phillip Hallam-Baker
<[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:34 AM
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, IETF-Announce
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt>
(IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard
> I remain opposed for the reason I gave last time this was proposed: The IETF
> should retain control of IPv4 and any statement to the effect that the IETF
> will no longer work on IPv4 will inevitably lead to formation of an IPv4
> legacy standards group in competition with IETF.
That would be an interesting development. But the document is hard to
interpret as “The IETF has abdicated responsibility for IPv4.” For instance,
the third sentence:
Until the time when IPv4 is no longer in
wide use and/or declared historic, the IETF needs to continue to
update IPv4-only protocols and features for vital operational or
security issues.
Similarly:
Some changes may be necessary in IPv4 protocols to
facilitate decommissioning IPv4 in a way that does not create
unacceptable impact to applications or users.
And also:
The IESG will review proposed working group charters to ensure
that work will be capable of operating without IPv4, except in
cases of IPv4 security, transition, and decommissioning work.
Finally, looking at the number of times we have actually Updated RFC791
"INTERNET PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION” (four
times, if I recall correctly) suggests to me that a competing standards body
created for the purpose of updating IPv4 would find itself with little to
do.
>
> Like it or not, FORTRAN and COBOL are still in common use a full 40 years
> after they were functionally obsolete. I see no reason to believe that anyone
> will need more than 32 bits of addressing for their home network. There being
> no compelling reason for my coffee pot to be able to talk to the entire
> Internet, I have a compelling reason to prevent it doing so.
>
> Rather than sunset IPv4, I would sunset IPv4 as an Internet protocol and
> relegate it to use as a network protocol only.
Then change the name to NPv4?
Do we care what people do on their private networks? Is it any of our
business?
Lee
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
