[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.
- [arch-d] Fwd: Re: some feedback on feedback on dr… Fernando Gont