IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-review] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 09 May 2011 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB42E06EC for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JG9+5wkyYV1e for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D34DE0682 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.25]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p49JigRA025194; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:45:04 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1304970308; bh=KaJ7JbA1/HMeqWdg6Mq6l7YcGi0=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=O8YJUO7388t2wmld5vAyjXkKs8SMGbIGZXKL/ZiP+GRg+JMa28CBWoZiOrT7E2JWZ SKLt0SGCytsVIxMudVle+LCjGpNSzdToLdEUQreFp1XiaWv2fTu3SaswYozGy18y7U w3niCvd+1mweJP25xBib2NPQBN2GJfX0MQFKKkuM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110509122236.04871058@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:44:01 -0700
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DC821FB.2050904@dcrocker.net>
References: <4DC821FB.2050904@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Apps Review <apps-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 19:45:45 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 10:18 09-05-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>(This is an "official" and significantly extended version of an 
>informal and narrow review I posted earlier.  /d)

Thanks for doing the review.

I didn't notice any recommendation about whether the draft should be 
published or not.  Out of curiosity, what would you recommend?

FWIW, I did not take a position as the draft was already on the list 
of assignments.  One of the questions that I did not cover in my 
comments was the Applications Area perspective.  Due to lack of time, 
I am not expanding on this.  If the team thinks that it worth 
starting a discussion about IPv6 and applications, feel free to start 
a new thread.

Best regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email