Out With the Old and In With the New: Planning for Protocol Transitions
draft-iab-protocol-transitions-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft
Last updated 2016-09-12
Replaces draft-thaler-transition-principles
Stream IAB
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Additional URLs
Stream IAB state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
Internet Architecture Board                               D. Thaler, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 Microsoft
Intended status: Informational                        September 12, 2016
Expires: March 16, 2017

Out With the Old and In With the New: Planning for Protocol Transitions
                 draft-iab-protocol-transitions-03.txt

Abstract

   Over the many years since the introduction of the Internet Protocol,
   we have seen a number of transitions from one protocol or technology
   to another, throughout the protocol stack.  Many protocols and
   technologies were not designed to enable smooth transition to
   alternatives or to easily deploy extensions, and thus some
   transitions, such as the introduction of IPv6, have been difficult.
   This document attempts to summarize some basic principles to enable
   future transitions, and also summarizes what makes for a good
   transition plan.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Thaler                   Expires March 16, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Planning for Transition          September 2016

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Transition vs. Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Translation/Adaptation Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Translation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IAB Members at the Time of This Writing . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     A.1.  Explicit Congestion Notification  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.2.  Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.3.  Internationalized Domain Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.4.  IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.5.  HTTP/2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       A.5.1.  Bundling of Features with New Versions  . . . . . . .  13
       A.5.2.  Planning for Replacement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   A "transition" is "the process or period of changing from one state
   or condition to another".  There are several types of such
   transitions, including both technical transitions (e.g., changing
   protocols or deploying an extension) and organizational transitions
   (e.g., changing what organization manages the IETF web site, or the
   RFC production center).  This document focuses solely on technical
   transitions, although some principles might apply to other types as
   well.

   There have been many IETF and IAB RFCs and IAB statements discussing
   transitions of various sorts.  Most are protocol-specific documents
   about specific transitions.  For example, some relevant ones in which
   the IAB has been involved include:

   o  IAB RFC 3424 [RFC3424] recommended that any technology for so-
      called "unilateral self-address fixing (UNSAF)" across NATs
      include an exit strategy to transition away from such a mechanism.
      Since the IESG, not the IAB, approves IETF documents, the IESG
      thus became the body to enforce (or not) such a requirement.

Show full document text