IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A045412762F for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id llo8uxXBnndP for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DECE912957C for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-417ff700000058cf-29-58e361350080
Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AC.CC.22735.53163E85; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:02:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 10:02:54 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
CC: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis
Thread-Index: AQHSqKQbSx1Qgh8+lEWa/JOBnloRYKGsWukAgAkvKoA=
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:02:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CFC7EFC7-BD75-43DC-A61C-FF7ABD7337A3@ericsson.com>
References: <0d33195c-d828-1d5b-6a49-ca23d9d4a793@sonic.net> <CY1PR03MB22654E9D09DC4384A74D9188A3350@CY1PR03MB2265.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR03MB22654E9D09DC4384A74D9188A3350@CY1PR03MB2265.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_77434F01-4D59-482D-864E-1808D5E6DC88"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrFIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt65F4uMIg22T1C2apwhYXFpxhNVi cuNsdov1p98xWrzs3MDmwOqxYFOpx60Zp1g8liz5yeTRuuMvu8fT7maWANYoLpuU1JzMstQi fbsEroxt/7YwFxw2rdj1sKyBcatRFyMnh4SAicTJd88Yuxi5OIQENjBKbL4/iwXCWcYoMX/7 O2aQKjagqg07PzOB2CIC6hL7fuwDK2IW6GGU+DX1C1hCWMBI4v+9fywQRcYSTxdNYYOwrSRe r7sCVsMioCLRc/kXO4jNK2AvsXr2XLC4kEA/0LbZLl2MHBycArES29+qg4QZBcQkvp9aA1bC LCAucevJfCaIq0UkHl48zQZhi0q8fPyPFcJWkvj4ez47RP0URonld7IgVglKnJz5hGUCo8gs JKNmISmbhaQMIq4tsWzha+ZZQBcxC+hITF7ICBE2lXh99COUbS0x49dBNghbUWJK90P2BYwc qxg5SosLcnLTjQw3MQJj8ZgEm+MOxr29nocYBTgYlXh4FWQfRQixJpYVV+YeYlQBan20YfUF RimWvPy8VCUR3phFjyOEeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ874rvxAhJJCeWJKanZpakFoE k2Xi4JRqYOSe8o3v/owjB74HaXQ33lrowXW71iqR/fyjvx07n/3NrH0T6TSv8vSz63tV/i2R krx3OWlS5M6+aRsK+24KNwXzuzRJ7xUVYEjzKbY8xeb+ycnCsmzbY17tZr++ydzPNlt69Woe y9G2cj1sc0tafFL2Eb7ttz2m96t5HWZgT+AoZ+9a/d4uX4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRAPGRgrHNAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/VBZJbwsmzpS66EqdI9VscuMqFW8>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:03:05 -0000

Hi Dave,

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Any issue with a standards track document having a normative reference to a BCP?

No issues that I know of. The downref rules seem to be pointing *from* Standards track and BCP documents *to* lower maturity level documents as per RFC3967. Just to be safe, I can still call this out in the IETF last call if the WG decides to go that way.

> If so, then could reword so that the MUST NOT is not in the same sentence as the BCP reference, e.g.
> 
>> However, the ability to return errors to address registrations MUST NOT be
>> used to restrict the ability of hosts to form and use addresses.  See [RFC7934]
>> for further discussion.
> 
> If there is no issue in having a normative reference to a BCP then I think Erik's text is fine.

I have no problems with this text either as it cleanly decouples the requirement from the background.

Thanks
Suresh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email