I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
This seems a little ... extreme. The document appears to me to be Mostly
Harmless, with all that implies.
The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4
is
fine, the sort of statement that the IAB should make, or have made, as an RFC
or
in some other form.
But this I-D claims
" Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in
section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic
term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the
Internet Protocol suite by itself. "
IPv4 is a phenomenal success, and RFC1122 is a key part of that. IPv4 was a
confused jumble, as IPv6 is now, and RFC1122, with another two or so I-Ds, cut
through the cruft and rendered it usable. IPv6 desparately needs an
equivalent
to RFC1122,
Complete agreement on this point. Such a document, informed by actual IPv6
deployment experience at some sort of scale, is urgently needed. And this most
certainly is NOT that document. But unless publishing this is seen as meeting
the need for an 1122v6 - and I've seen no indication that's the case - I fail
to see the harm.
OTOH, if this really is seen as being a 1122v6, then I join you in opposing
it's publication.
as a trawl of the v6ops list archives shows, and clearly this I-D is
never going to be it, but claiming that this I-D provides an update to
RFC1122,
coupled
with its title, gives the message that there is not going to be such an I-D;
IPv6 will remain a confused jumble (and so is unlikely ever to emulate the
success of IPv4).
Maybe I'm being clueless about this, but I don't see how "IPv6 Support Required
for all IP-capable nodes" gives this impression.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf