Re: [addr-select-dt] next step

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 16 September 2010 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708C33A695D for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VX0z3CN87Hb2 for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f172.google.com (mail-px0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C6F3A69C2 for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi6 with SMTP id 6so634355pxi.31 for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=sasacXopcPEQNMapsp18aKN8lESAO4L/T3g2sz+ZchY=; b=U7g6FmnEJUTZc7JI2GzPIkznAq21dxuaHTI0iL1KEFRJNwsZ61SSn6OvN5KDa1y9hJ MU71el7MgHLJO6AeZmrBLLKI8wK5V9Cez29Ob7+76FgMSXkFWVclX/EvKwbN4UCkIDXy v+1AWckBc1Okh/JAfNxZcNzMC4Zi1EIp1VWt0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=gK/BqsomJ26NGvkQrz6ar0fCOpZ8l++xCFGOHZWMHnmdxc3+9DPn0e4XpLmFm9n0gu LMXxUiP44uXD5gGjYwAE65HioYXjHFOwMw4KmQCqSUAD+VJUNhgQneCBksPTBdUwUMZN Sj4I6f2FnUqHdw8DvPmB7fHWallt375mCyO14=
Received: by 10.114.131.6 with SMTP id e6mr4142673wad.90.1284661476641; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.224.217] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x9sm4869709waj.3.2010.09.16.11.24.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C921BE4.2060508@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:24:32 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <741FF4AA-AC4D-4B6F-9B2A-5EF3CA8C21AE@gmail.com>
References: <D6CE49D0-6BF0-488E-B4AD-F28BFE2DEE98@nttv6.net> <4C8FC373.5010404@innovationslab.net> <7E55CDE9-7377-4392-AF43-ED57ED6375EF@nttv6.net> <4C921BE4.2060508@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] next step
X-BeenThere: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPv6 Address Selection Design Team <addr-select-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/addr-select-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:addr-select-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0000

Brian, Arifumi,

> Or, do you prefer a brand new proposal draft that contains the actual
>> changes to RFC 3484 ?
> 
> How about moving the requirements/considerations discussion to an
> appendix, change the title, and have the body reflect the revised
> address selection policies?  This would eliminate the need to ask the WG
> to adopt another draft.

I agree that the draft name can stay the same

However, the title, that is currently:

  Things To Be Included in RFC 3484 Revision

needs to be changed to something like:

  Update to RFC 3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6

The document itself should include that it is updating RFC 3484.  Unless, the plan is to replace it completely, where it should say obsoleting RFC 3484.

Bob