The underlying intent of this document may be well intentioned, but the
execution is lacking. As currently presented I strongly oppose it's publication
as an IETF RFC.
1. The document title is (wilfully?) melodramatic and is in conflict with the
content of the document. This document specifically lists circumstances under
which the authors think that the IETF should continue to work on IPv4. Using
this document title will do nothing more than cause confusion, panic, and
result in the kind of "land grab" that others have worried about. Can the title
please be changed to reflect the actual content of the document.
2. The Abstract is at odds with the content of the document. The Abstract says:
> The IETF will stop working on IPv4, except where needed to mitigate
> documented security issues, to facilitate the transition to IPv6, or
> to enable IPv4 decommissioning.
...but Section 1 adds to this list the very important point that
> 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. "Vital" means "necessary for successfully operating
> IPv4 networks."
...The Abstract must give an accurate account of what the document says. This
could be achieved by saying less ("This document describes the IETF's approach
to new work on IPv4 and IPv4-only protocols") or more (by setting out the full
list of cases as described in Section 1).
3. The bullet list in Section 1 concludes with:
> New IETF work must function completely on IPv6-only nodes and
> networks.
...This is ambiguous after the previous bullets. I believe that either there is
some special meaning of "New" intended here (different from in previous
bullets) or this is meant to read something like:
| All new IETF work must be capable of functioning in IPv6-only networks.
4. The IANA Considerations section attempts a commentary that is probably
unhelpful. It might be helpful to replace this with a "standard" Null IANA
section as that will be clearer and is entirely consistent with the ask (which
is null).
5. You might consider adding some statement about documentation of examples in
new RFCs (idnits already drops a strong hint, but most authors chose to ignore
it). It might be too strong to require non-documentation of IPv4 examples, but
inclusion of IPv6 examples whenever there is an IPv4 example sounds like a good
idea "unless there is a good and documented reason why not."
And lastly, just to check...
Suppose I have a protocol that runs in a private network using a private
address space, and suppose that that network currently uses IPv4. Take as an
example a network that uses management or control protocol running between the
routers and separate from the traffic carried over the network.
My reading of this I-D is that those protocols can be enhanced and features
added provided that those additions are also made such that the protocols would
work perfectly in an IPv6-only network.
If it is not the intention that I should be able to make this reading, then
words should be changed.
Thanks,
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The
> IESG
> Sent: 28 September 2017 14:26
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on
> IPv4)
> to Proposed Standard
>
>
> 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 protected] mailing lists by 2017-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
> The IETF will stop working on IPv4, except where needed to mitigate
> documented security issues, to facilitate the transition to IPv6, or
> to enable IPv4 decommissioning.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
> The document contains these normative downward references.
> See RFC 3967 for additional information:
> draft-george-ipv6-support: IPv6 Support Within IETF work (None - )
>
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
