Subject: IPv6-only IETF web server for publishing an Internet Draft?

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 10:16:14 +0200

Hi IETFers,

Is there an ietf.org web server that could be accessed only on IPv6?

I would like to submit an Internet Draft but I want it to be read only 
with IPv6 https (not IPv4).  The topic is something very small about GTP 
protocol used in cellular networks.

Alex

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 10:14:13 +0100

Alex,

Why don't you post it on your own web site if you don't want it to be openly accessible to all and receive widespread review?

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: 04 May 2018 09:16
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: IPv6-only IETF web server for publishing an Internet Draft?
> 
> Hi IETFers,
>

---

From: "Marco Davids (Private)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 11:37:41 +0200

On 04/05/2018 10:16, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> with IPv6 https (not IPv4). 

Make sure it is *truly* IPv6 only for additional fun. So, the name
servers should also only have AAAA records.

An example of what I mean can be found here: https://dnslabs.nl/

And speaking of IPv6 fun; I still like http://42.be/ quite a lot.

-- 
Marco

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 07:48:37 -0400

Personal opinion only...

A key part of the intent of Internet Drafts is that they be
generally available to anyone interested on the Internet.  I
understand the motivations for experiments and demonstrations
but, if something is posted that is deliberately inaccessible to
someone who cannot not or will not use IPv6, it invalidates the
function of the document as a generally-accessible I-D and
presumably could result in a process problem (or appeal) if
there were any attempt to move it into an IETF consensus process.

Please do demonstrations and experiments in another way.

    john

--On Friday, May 4, 2018 11:37 +0200 "Marco Davids (Private)"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I would like to submit an Internet Draft but I want it to be
>> read only with IPv6 https (not IPv4). 
> 
> Make sure it is *truly* IPv6 only for additional fun. So, the
> name servers should also only have AAAA records.
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 22:32:21 -0400

> I would like to submit an Internet Draft but I want it to be read only with
    > IPv6 https (not IPv4).  The topic is something very small about GTP protocol
    > used in cellular networks.

Use your own web site, or I can help.

I suspect that your goal is to find out if some readers/colleagues actually
enough IPv6-fu to even just retrieve a document.   It can be very
frustrating.... It's 2018 and many still have their heads in the v4 sand.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 09:19:27 +0200

Le 06/05/2018 à 04:32, Michael Richardson a écrit :
> [SECURITE : MISE EN QUARANTAINE DES PIECES JOINTES POTENTIELLEMENT DANGEREUSES]
> 
> Ce message contient des pieces jointes potentiellement dangereuses car susceptibles de contenir des virus. Pour lutter contre l'expansion de ce type d'attaque, les documents [null] ont ete retires du message original ci-dessous. Pour les documents Office, le CEA recommande l'usage exclusif des formats plus recents exempts de macros comme DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, merci de le signaler a votre expediteur.
> 
> Pour de plus amples informations ou pour connaitre les mecanismes de mise en quarantaine, vous pouvez vous rapprocher de votre service informatique ou consulter le site USCIpedia - rubrique PureMessage.
> 
> ----------------MESSAGE ORGINAL ci-dessous------------------
> 
> 

Thank you for the offer.  I will come back soon with the request.

The condition is that the webserver must listen and http transfer only 
on IPv6 addresses, and have no IPv4 address.  Ideally, that IPv6 address 
should be in a DNS record as well, but it is not mandatory at this time.

> enough IPv6-fu to even just retrieve a document.

That could be a side effect, but no, my main goal is not to find out who 
can connect.

My goal is to work on IPv6.

Separately I will also try to find out what is IPv6-fu.

> It can be very

I can understand and I do not oppose it.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:19:37 +0200

John,

Thank you for the reply.

I understand the need of universal reachability, separation of 
experiments, and avoid of appeals.

Allow me to wonder though whether the non-IETF XML format went through 
such experimenting before being enforced at IETF scale.

Alex

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 06:47:59 -0400

--On Monday, May 14, 2018 11:19 +0200 Alexandre Petrescu
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Allow me to wonder though whether the non-IETF XML format went
> through such experimenting before being enforced at IETF scale.

While I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other or
exactly what you are referring to, if you are referring to what
is known as the xml2rfc format, 

(1) It is not "being enforced" (in either version).   You are
free to prepare and submit I-Ds, or even final pre-publication
RFC drafts in plain ASCII text format without getting anywhere
near XML.

(2) And, yes, there has been extensive experimentation and
discussion.  Some of us are fairly unhappy with the new version
and its documentation, but that doesn't change the history of
discussion, documentation, and, apparently, rough consensus.

   john

>> but, if something is posted that is deliberately inaccessible
>> to someone who cannot not or will not use IPv6, it
>> invalidates the function of the document as a
>> generally-accessible I-D and presumably could result in a
>> process problem (or appeal) if there were any attempt to move
>> it into an IETF consensus process.
>>

---

From: Anton Ivanov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 14:33:27 +0100

> Please do demonstrations and experiments in another way.

+1

On the difference of Draft vs Rant.

A draft is submitted via the IETF website, versioned, subject to the 
restrictions described in the relevant RFCs and processes and accessible 
to THE ENTIRE INTERNET COMMUNITY via the ietf website.

Something restricted by the author based on arbitrary criteria and 
accessible via an arbitrary mechanism is a rant.

This is regardless of the mechanism being NetBIOS, IPX, RFC1149 or 
RFC2549. All are equally good for ranting and selective presentation 
only to the chosen ones.

So if ranting is desired, the rantee can go and rant wherever he/she 
likes over whatever protocol he/she likes, it is not an IETF, IETF WG or 
IETF mailing list matter.

A.

-- 
Anton R. Ivanov

Cambridge Greys Limited, England and Wales company No 10273661
http://www.cambridgegreys.com/

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 15:54:11 +0200

Le 14/05/2018 à 12:47, John C Klensin a écrit :
> While I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other or exactly
> what you are referring to, if you are referring to what is known as
> the xml2rfc format,
> 
> (1) It is not "being enforced" (in either version).   You are free to
> prepare and submit I-Ds, or even final pre-publication RFC drafts in
> plain ASCII text format without getting anywhere near XML.

Ah yes.  I just tried moments ago and the GUI submission system accepts 
ok if I only submit a txt file - xml is not mandatory.

There is a new API to do draft submission programatically, rather than 
through a GUI - it is a great idea.

The page seems to be saying it prefers xml but not sure.
I wonder whether it works on IPv6.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/submit

> discussion.  Some of us are fairly unhappy with the new version and
> its documentation, but that doesn't change the history of discussion,
> documentation, and, apparently, rough consensus.

I agree with the XML direction even though it can be painful at times 
the result is rewarding.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:08:14 +0200

> to THE ENTIRE INTERNET COMMUNITY via the ietf website.

I can agree that it is going to be hard to do versioning on something 
else than the automated IETF datatracker.  Now it is manual posting with 
two people involved each time.

> accessible via an arbitrary mechanism is a rant.

An IPv6 Draft on an IPv6 server is no more of a rant than a claim of 
IPv6 full access on an IPv6 access network.

Such claims were made recently on IETF mailing lists: some IPv4-IPv6 
transitioning mechanism was claimed to work on experimental ESSIDs at 
IETF meeting.  Such claim pretends that an access system be IPv6 full 
access yet not support ping6 2001:4860:4860::8888.  (such claims are 
happening outside IETF too, but not the intention to discuss that here).

Are these claims qualified as rants as well?

/end of rhetorics :-)

Alex

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 07:34:05 -0700

> On May 14, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> An IPv6 Draft on an IPv6 server is no more of a rant than a claim of IPv6 full access on an IPv6 access network.

Nobody prevents you from placing a copy of an internet draft on an IPv6 only server. But by definition a document only becomes an internet draft if it is published in the internet draft repository. Part of the process is that it becomes widely available, and the authors do not control the publication process.

You can absolutely publish notes on an IPv6 only site -- the IPv6 turtle was a well known example. But those documents are not internet drafts.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:02:02 +0200

Le 14/05/2018 à 16:34, Christian Huitema a écrit :
>> An IPv6 Draft on an IPv6 server is no more of a rant than a claim
>> of IPv6 full access on an IPv6 access network.
> 
> Nobody prevents you from placing a copy of an internet draft on an
> IPv6 only server. But by definition a document only becomes an
> internet draft if it is published in the internet draft repository.
> Part of the process is that it becomes widely available, and the
> authors do not control the publication process.

I want to control the publication process of what I write, in some cases.

In most cases I am very happy with the publication process of IETF.

> You can absolutely publish notes on an IPv6 only site -- the IPv6
> turtle was a well known example. But those documents are not internet
> drafts.

Is an "Internet Note" a qualified naming at IETF?    I think I heard 
"Internet Engineering Note" or something like that.  Maybe that is what 
you meant...

As for the turtle, yes.

This is the list of websites I am aware of that give better content if 
accessed on IPv6:

http://www.kame.net
http://dnslabs.nl
(humbly) http://petrescu.sandelman.ca

Alex

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:19:16 -0700

> In most cases I am very happy with the publication process of IETF.

The publication process of the IETF is part of the standardization
process. By participating in the process and submitting drafts, you give
up control of the publication process.

> "Internet Engineering Note" or something like that.  Maybe that is
> what you meant...

No. I meant that this becomes a document of your choosing, such as for
example a technical report published by some organization. Just not the
IETF.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 13:32:46 -0500

Bonjour Christian,

> example a technical report published by some organization. Just not the
It is OK, Alex wanted it this way, we are going (I hope someone soon) post
a copy on the mailing then it is  going to become an I-D.

Behcet