Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote: Its 'rough' consensus... I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for publication asap please. I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't read all of the messages, but definitely get the impression that it falls short of consensus. And just to be clear on procedure: - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide consensus. - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness. The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote: Its 'rough' consensus... I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for publication asap please. I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't read all of the messages, but definitely get the impression that it falls short of consensus. If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome and the document shepherds report which can you can find here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/ Then you should consider talking to the responsible ad or an appeal to the IESG. As far as I am concerned the accusation that the process has gone off the rails is a seperate issue from the merits or lack thereof of the proposal. And just to be clear on procedure: - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide consensus. This is an ietf last call... - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness. Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised that an informational document may confer historical status on a standards track document. The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. Keith ___ v6ops mailing list v6...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote: Its 'rough' consensus... I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for publication asap please. I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't read all of the messages, but definitely get the impression that it falls short of consensus. There were quite heavy discussion and in the end, there were a few that was totally against it, the rest supported the document. No point in repeating that entire discussion here really, go back and look at the archive. And just to be clear on procedure: - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide consensus. - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness. The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. Let's take a few step back and think about what we are trying to achieve here, what is our goal. IPv6 for everyone for any price? A IPv6 only world? A world where both IPv4 and IPv6 work or? I will claim our goal is native IPv6 along IPv4, and in the long run, IPv6 only. We don't need more tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4, that was okay 10years ago, maybe even 5 or 3 years ago. Now it is time to actual do the right thing and say let's do it properly, let's do IPv6 native. ...and stop discussing yesterdays technology. -- Roger Jorgensen | rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome and the document shepherds report which can you can find here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/ Then you should consider talking to the responsible ad or an appeal to the IESG. As far as I am concerned the accusation that the process has gone off the rails is a seperate issue from the merits or lack thereof of the proposal. I agree that it's a separate issue, and should be treated separately. Again, I haven't read all of the discussion, probably won't have time to do that for several more days, and will withhold a decision about any process appeal until I've done so. (And frankly, if IESG wants to sabotage 6to4 also, I doubt that a process appeal would do any good. I'll argue vigorously for something that I think is useful and/or important, but I have no interest in making hard-working people's lives harder for no good reason.) And just to be clear on procedure: - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide consensus. This is an ietf last call... indeed. I just wanted to counter the possibly-implied assertion that v6ops rough consensus was sufficient. - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness. Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised that an informational document may confer historical status on a standards track document. I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG is trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't think we want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards track is easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than putting something on the standards track. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: I will claim our goal is native IPv6 along IPv4, and in the long run, IPv6 only. We don't need more tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4, that was okay 10years ago, maybe even 5 or 3 years ago. Now it is time to actual do the right thing and say let's do it properly, let's do IPv6 native. The time to actually do the right thing was also 10-15 years ago. But native v6, for the most part, is still not here yet. At least the ISPs are saying Real Soon Now, which is something. But who knows what Real Soon means? Until native IPv6 is actually here, where here means everywhere, there is still a need to do tunneling of v6 over v4. ...and stop discussing yesterdays technology. We're always discussing yesterday's technology. IPv6 was approved in 1995, if I recall. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Keith Moore wrote: - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness. Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised that an informational document may confer historical status on a standards track document. I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG is trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't think we want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards track is easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than putting something on the standards track. The record will show that that the intended status of the document until it reached the iegs was standards track. it has been understood from the outset that advancement of the document was to obsolete 3056 and 3068. revision 4 at the request of the iesg changed th e intented status to informational. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
Its 'rough' consensus... I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for publication asap please. G/ -Original Message- From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: 09 June 2011 16:38 To: james woodyatt Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:20 PM, james woodyatt wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote: [...] And it unclear to me why IETF would want to take away a _transition_ technique from people for whom it is working... Let's be very clear. This proposed RFC would not take away the 6to4 transition mechanism. The working group considered and rejected the idea of publishing a phase-out plan. This draft sets no new requirements for most current vendors of 6to4-capable equipment. It is a purely procedural bill, not a technical one. As such, it will damage no one. I have also seen those claims in v6ops email (haven't caught up with all of it, but have seen a few messages). I don't buy the argument. Clearly the intent of this draft and protocol action are to discourage use of 6to4, particularly in new implementations. You can't discourage use of 6to4 in new implementations without harming people who are already using it and depending on it. (That would be a bit like declaring IPv4 Historic and discouraging new implementations from supporting it - when we all know that there will be people using IPv4 in corner cases for many years even after the public Internet no longer routes it. Legacy hardware and software that's still in use, etc.) When the draft is clearly intended to do harm to 6to4, and there are clearly people using 6to4 in the Real World, it strikes me as disingenuous for its proponents to claim that the document will do no harm. Publish it. Publish it now. Let its authors be free to pursue more useful ends than defending it. The authors are already free to abandon the effort and pursue more useful ends. Not only would publishing this do harm to 6to4 and its users, it would set a bad precedent. We're supposed to be working toward consensus, not trying to cause harm to things that people use. Keith ___ v6ops mailing list v6...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
Hi, On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:05:29AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. One voice doesn't make it consensus to drop. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG is trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't think we want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards track is easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than putting something on the standards track. The record will show that that the intended status of the document until it reached the iegs was standards track. it has been understood from the outset that advancement of the document was to obsolete 3056 and 3068. revision 4 at the request of the iesg changed th e intented status to informational. And Informational status *for the document*, if published, is entirely appropriate. But the *protocol action* is a standards-track protocol action. It used to not be considered necessary to publish an RFC every time the IESG approved a protocol action. Somewhere along the way, having a companion document started to be commonplace. I'm not sure why that got to be conventional - maybe it was because of increased use of tracking tools that were written with document processing in mind. And at least sometimes it's beneficial to the community to publish an RFC that explains why a particular document's status has changed, and how to interpret that change in document status. But RFC 2026 didn't anticipate the need for every protocol action to have an associated document, and sometimes - as in this case - it causes confusion when they are associated. Process-wise, I think that the protocol action and the document action should be separate items. Though of course it makes no sense for IESG to approve the document if it doesn't approve the protocol action. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
