Ready to compromise? was RE: V6 still not supported

["Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

Dear all

Following advice from thus list, I updated the YADA I-Draft (latest is 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-03.html, more to come soon if feedback is heard) and 
proposed it to the v6ops WG at the IETF. 

For memory, the main goal here is to find a compromise as opposed to yet another transition solution, though it can be 
used as a side effect to move along the ladder. The compromise does not change IPv4 or IPv6, tries not to take side for 
one or the other, and add features to both sides which, if implemented, reduce the chasm that leads to dual stack and 
CG-NATs.

There's value for the movers, lots more public address space for the IPv4-only stack/networks and free prefixes per 
node and new deployment opportunities for the IPv6-only ones.

One major update from the original text accounts for Dave's comment in this list on BCP 38 enforcement, I believe it's 
solved now. I also added format layouts to Abe Chen's question, and text on the naïve version vs. all the elasticity 
that exists there and in IP in general to allow real world deployments.

Comments welcome, here and/or at v6ops for those who participate there.

Many thanks in advance;

Pascal