Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01
review-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01-rtgdir-lc-bonica-2017-10-16-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document:  draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01
Reviewer: Ron Bonica
Review Date: 10/6/2017
IETF LC End Date: 10/12/2017
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the Routing
ADs discuss these issues further with the authors.

Comments:

Major Issues:

1) If published, would this draft prevent work like RFC 6864? Given that the
majority of Internet traffic still runs over IPv4, is that a good idea?

2) I cannot parse Section 1, Bullet 2. The problem may be that the terms
"IPv4-only protocol" and "IPv4-only feature" are undefined. The use of
negatives in the second sentence doesn't help. I think that the author is
trying to say, "it is OK to add an IPv4 feature so long as you add the
equivalent IPv6 feature". But which of the following examples are covered:

a)  it is OK to add a feature to OSPFv2, so long as you add the equivalent
feature to OSPFv3 b)  it is OK to add an new ICMPv4 message, so long as you add
the equivalent ICMPv6 message c) it is OK to add a new IPv4 Option, so long as
you add the equivalent IPv6 option

I think that a) and b) are reasonable, while c) is not. But I can't glean this
from the draft.

3) I cannot parse Section 1, Bullet 4 because the term IPv4 extension
technology is undefined. Does this mean that RFC 791 cannot be updated? Or does
it mean more than this

4) Does this document represent a departure from current IETF policy? If so,
how? If not, why is it needed.

5) The title of this document offers shock value. Once we resolve the ambiguity
in the document, and once we answer the question above, we should decide
whether the title delivers the right message to the industry.

Minor Issues:

None

Nits:

None