Subject: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:53:30 +0200

Hi,

I recently submitted an I-D
draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00.txt, mandating use
of IPv6 in examples in RFCs.

I was reading some pretty recent drafts and noticed that authors
continue using IPv4 in their examples. This is probably more convenient,
but is not really forward thinking. Also, the prevalence of IPv6
examples will send a strong message that IPv4 is essentially a legacy
protocol.

I wonder if this WG is interested in progressing this document as a WG
item.

Thanks,

Andrei

> Name:		draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples
> Revision:	00
> Title:		Mandating use of IPv6 in examples
> Document date:	2016-03-21
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		3
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>    IPv6 is a successor of the legacy IPv4 protocol.  This document
>    mandates use of IPv6 in examples provided in RFCs.

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:15:43 -0430

Hi,
  This makes sense to me.  I totally agree.
  If I might suggest a minor change.., I would add in section 3 the text
"section 4" after RFC 5952 [RFC5952]:

---
RFC 5952 [RFC5952] section 4 recommends to use the compressed format for
IPv6
   address textual representation.  For instance, leading zeros MUST be
   suppressed, the use of the symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum
   capability and the characters "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", and "f" in an
   IPv6 address MUST be represented in lowercase.
-- 

Regards,

Alejandro,

El 4/6/2016 a las 7:23 AM, Andrei Robachevsky escribió:
> _______________________________________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4

---

From: Morizot Timothy S <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:57:55 +0000

>examples will send a strong message that IPv4 is essentially a legacy

I agree that examples in RFCs should be required to use IPv6 examples (and optionally also include IPv4 examples). If IPv6 is really the successor specification, then continuing to publish RFCs that do not provide examples using IPv6 is actually a disservice to the community. It seems like a sensible step.

One small quibble, though. I'm not sure that the section on IPv6 addresses with ports accurately reflects RFC5952 and RFC3986. The bracket notation MUST be used if it represents a URI literal. In other instances, it SHOULD be used (as the draft indicates), but other formats are acceptable. People may use this document when developing examples without referring to the reference, so the explicit requirement should be noted. (And I think the convention is that the 'SHOULD' should be capitalized.) So perhaps something like the following text.

"IPv6 addresses including a port number SHOULD use the bracket notation style [RFC5952]. URI examples containing an IPv6 literal MUST use enclose it in brackets [RFC3986]."

And then provide the example. I'm sure it could be phrased better than the above. It's early yet. But the idea is that someone reading this document should know there are situations where the bracket notation is actually required.

Scott

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 10:11:27 -0300

+1

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: sunset4 <[email-masked]> en nombre de Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: miércoles, 6 de abril de 2016, 9:45
Para: <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples

>        If I might suggest a minor change.., I would add in section 3
>      the text "section 4" after RFC 5952 [RFC5952]:
>      
>      ---
>      RFC 5952 [RFC5952] section 4 recommends to use the compressed
>      format for IPv6
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>    
>
>    
>  
>

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:45:50 +0000

Andrei

I support your effort.

As someone that has tried in its own docs, I can tell that It won't be
easier as IPv6 addresses are a bit messier and longer than v4.

But worth the effort and I think is a good idea.

Regards
as

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 at 14:12 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> >URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00.txt
> >Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples/
> >Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-00
> >
> >
> >Abstract:

---

From: Erik Nygren <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:23:03 -0300

+1

This seems worthwhile.  Anecdotally, I've seen that engineering teams which
include IPv6 examples in their design docs
(eg, showing sample configurations or sample config screens or test case
examples) seem much more likely
to properly implement and test IPv6 support as a first-class feature.

   Erik

---

From: "Joel Bion (jpbion)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:37:56 +0000

Maybe because in doing so they show they can actually think natively with IPv6 addresses? (You'd perhaps be surprised by the number of people I run into even today who treat each v6 address like it's something they have to send through  a translator to understand).

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Erik Nygren <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

+1

This seems worthwhile.  Anecdotally, I've seen that engineering teams which include IPv6 examples in their design docs
(eg, showing sample configurations or sample config screens or test case examples) seem much more likely
to properly implement and test IPv6 support as a first-class feature.

   Erik

_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:59:48 +0000

Speaking as an individual:

You'd think this wouldn't be controversial, but I'm not convinced that
this sort of bureaucratic formatting rule is really the right solution to
get IETF as a whole more focused on IPv6 and reinforcing the idea that
IPv4 is now a legacy protocol. Yes, increasing exposure and familiarity
with IPv6 addresses by using them more consistently is a good thing, and
it seems harmless to suggest that we do this, but it's the word mandate
that bothers me.

A mandate implies that there is some sort of recourse to force it to be
changed if people don't comply, and a question of who enforces it - the
IESG? The RFC editor? IDNITs check? The document shepherd? Making this a
suggestion means that it is something that is enforced via people looking
at drafts during reviews, WGLC, IETF LC, etc and asking, "is there any
reason why these examples are IPv4?" and failing any acceptable
justification, suggesting that they update the examples with the current
protocol version. I think this is very similar to what happens when people
use randomly chosen IP addresses or ASNs for examples instead of the
proper documentation ones - someone points out that a change needs to be
made, and we all move on. That might mean that it doesn't actually need to
progress as an RFC, having served its purpose as an I-D to start the
discussion.
It's also possible that the right place for this is in the RFC style
guide, though that's probably a longer discussion since as far as I can
tell, the style guide does not currently have any recommendation about use
of documentation addresses, no references to RFC 6890, etc. and so adding
a discussion about which *type* of documentation addresses to use might be
going too far.

To the content of the document:
From a strict RFC2119 normative keyword interpretation, I'm don't think
that MUST is the right word here, since you caveat that MUST with
"unless..."
MUST doesn't have exceptions. SHOULD and MAY do.
So I think you probably want a "SHOULD... unless". And there's also the
problem that 2119 words are, by strictest interpretation, intended to
describe behavior that is required for interoperability, not "eat your
vegetables" imperatives, and people tend to raise objections to their use
in the latter way. Not saying that there aren't documents that use 2119 a
little off-label, but the burden of justification is higher.
Perhaps RFC 6919 is a better choice for your normative keywords? :-)

Thanks,

Wes

On 4/6/16, 7:53 AM, "sunset4 on behalf of Andrei Robachevsky"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>> Name:draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples
>> Revision:00
>> Title:Mandating use of IPv6 in examples
>> Document date:2016-03-21
>> Group:Individual Submission
>> Pages:3
>> URL:

________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:22:18 +0100

On 4/6/16, 3:59 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of George, Wes"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>IESG? The RFC editor? IDNITs check? The document shepherd?

IDNITS does currently check whether you are using rfc6890 addresses
reserved for documentation. It could certainly be updated to say,
³WARNING: You¹re using IPv4 example addresses, but no IPv6 addresses were
found.²
I say ³warning² instead of ³error² because until IPv4 is Historic, there
are still valid use cases for IPv4-only examples (and especially in the
case of translation technologies).

Lee

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:33:06 -0300

I recall there was a document, hopefully turned into RFC, a few years ago, stating that any future work in IETF must support IPv6 unless clearly is an IPv4-only protocol. But can’t find that document …

If I’m correct and that document exist, what about reviewing that one to include also now the mandatory IPv6 examples ?

Saludos,
Jordi

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:08:41 +0100

rfc6540?
"IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes²

Lee

On 4/6/16, 6:33 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>I recall there was a document, hopefully turned into RFC, a few years
>ago, stating that any future work in IETF must support IPv6 unless
>clearly is an IPv4-only protocol. But can¹t find that document Š
>
>If I¹m correct and that document exist, what about reviewing that one to
>include also now the mandatory IPv6 examples ?
>
>Saludos,
>Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of
>>>>-i
>>>>pv6-examples-00.txt
>>>> Status:
>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv
>>>>6-
>>>>examples/
>>>> Htmlized:
>>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-exa
>>>>mp
>>>>les-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
>>to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
>>solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
>>If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
>>notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
>>in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
>>strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
>>E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
>>delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:25:10 -0300

No, it was much earlier than the time of this document, I think around 2006.

As I recall it, was not referring to nodes, but in general to “IETF work”.

May be got the idea wrong in my memory, and it was not an RFC, but an IESG rule something such as “omitting IPv6 support in a document without a reasonable explanation will not be accepted by IESG” ? Do we have this kind of “rules” ?

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: miércoles, 6 de abril de 2016, 11:08
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples

>>clearly is an IPv4-only protocol. But can¹t find that document 
>>

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:30:31 +0200

Thanks everyone for your comments and general support.

George, Wes wrote on 06/04/16 16:59:
[...]

> I think this is very similar to what happens when people

Agree, still I think a document like this can ensure better consistency
and raise awareness.

[...]
> that MUST is the right word here, since you caveat that MUST with

Good point. I incorporated the comments and also toned the document down
a bit. There are indeed legitimate cases where IPv6 examples are not
applicable.

Here it is:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-01.txt

Andrei

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 14:16:19 -0300

Thanks to Henrik for this!

https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/changelog

2.14.01 <https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits-v2.14.01>
(diff-2.14.01 
<https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits-v2.14.01.diff.html>)

* Added a comment about adding IPv6 examples for documents that uses
addresses from the IPv4 documentation range, without having any
from the IPV6 documentation range
* Changed some references to RFC5735 to instead mention RFC6980.

( Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>  06 Apr 2016 9:57:59 +0100)

Lee

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:18:40 +0200

> Thanks to Henrik for this!

Indeed! Technology rules!

> * Changed some references to RFC5735 to instead mention RFC6980.

One nit, It'd be better to say:
non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 or IPv6 addresses

Andrei

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:56:09 +0200

I strongly agree with the idea.

It should be noted it is as quick to type
2001:db8::1 as
192.168.1.1 is, but longer than
10.1.1.1 is.

On another hand, the shortest IPv4 address is
1.1.1.1 whereas IPv6 is 1::1.

Alex