IETF: End Work on IPv4
draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-10-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Marc Blanchet , Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca, sunset4-chairs@ietf.org, sunset4@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (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'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org 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 - )

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard. This is a Standard Track document, as it creates key implications on all future standards track documents.


(2) Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary

  This document requests IETF to stop working on IPv4 except for security issues.

Working Group Summary

All the revisions of this document have created a lot of discussions in the past. The working group last call got strong support but only very few people participated in the last call. Given the relative inactivity of the working group for quite a while, it is possible that the mailing list is not watched. Given that this document has widespread implications to any work within IETF, the real wide review should be done IETF wide.

Document Quality

This document is pretty short. Implementations are not required, however, the impact of the document to the standard track documents, to process and to implementations is significant.


Personnel

Document shepherd: Marc Blanchet
Responsible Area Director: Terry Manderson


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document

See above in Working Group Summary

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

See above in Working Group Summary

(5) Do portions of the document need review

No domain specific review is found necessary. However, all domains should review the implications of the document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has

See above in Working Group Summary

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures

yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

none.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

See above in Working Group Summary


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

none.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.

ID-Nits says that this document does not have an Introduction. The shepherd thinks that the document in its current form does not need one.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

see (5)

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

none.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

none.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

none.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section,

no IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review

none.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no language or code.