[arch-d] Fwd: Re: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 09 May 2020 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090AE3A0912; Sat, 9 May 2020 01:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 PDKIdswqG0l4; Sat, 9 May 2020 01:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC2883A0911; Sat, 9 May 2020 01:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7180980831; Sat, 9 May 2020 10:58:06 +0200 (CEST)
References: <CAOj+MMEpAkLdQgdTW_oaTP1d4PLhn2BBOrCJoEU02K_Hyb5vcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <CAOj+MMEpAkLdQgdTW_oaTP1d4PLhn2BBOrCJoEU02K_Hyb5vcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07ca1532-1f89-21ee-afaf-758a8d7fe76e@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 05:55:12 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEpAkLdQgdTW_oaTP1d4PLhn2BBOrCJoEU02K_Hyb5vcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/CbL1xAr6vtIgNVJ2Lb8p3AtxoRU>
Subject: [arch-d] Fwd: Re: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 08:58:11 -0000

Heads-up for those that may care about IPv6's "architecture".



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: some feedback on feedback on 
draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03
Date: 	Sat, 9 May 2020 01:39:57 +0200
From: 	Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: 	Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
CC: 	6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>



     And even that much would wait on the resolution of the pending
     appeal on
     the topic.


If we would decouple end to end IPv6 from encapsulated transport IPv6 as 
well as allow required flexibility in the transport part there would no 
longer be any basis for the appeal.

Where does it say that we must wait for the result of the appeal if WG 
would like to propose the solution which turns the entire appeal in 
progress into a moot point ?

Thx,
R.