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.
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.
The rest will take care of itself. There's no need to preach.
A few suggestions follow. The main problem at the moment is
too many words.
Abstract
The IETF has stopped working on solutions that are specific to
IPv4, except where needed to mitigate documented security issues,
to facilitate the transition to IPv6, or to enable IPv4
decommissioning.
...
1. Statement
The IETF has developed IPv6 to replace IPv4.
Ongoing focus is required to ensure that future IETF work supports
the evolution of the Internet towards IPv6-only operation. However,
until the time when IPv4 is no longer in widespread use, the IETF
needs to continue to update IPv4-only protocols and features for
vital operational or security issues...
...
The IESG will review proposed working group charters to ensure
that new work will be capable of operating with IPv6, and with
or without IPv4.
Note: that "with or without" is important if we expect to be taken
seriously.
The IETF will update IPv4 protocols and features only to
repair serious security faults or to facilitate IPv4
decommissioning and IPv6 transition.
and delete this because it's redundant after the above changes:
New IETF work will explicitly support IPv6, or be IP version
agnostic (because it is implemented above the network layer),
except IPv4-specific transition technologies.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
