Re: [BEHAVE] Very late query on stateful NAT64

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 22 October 2010 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5C43A680C for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.194, 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 VoYXR6Jj8YB0 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C113A6805 for <behave@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb28 with SMTP id 28so1230844wyb.31 for <behave@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cPuqU4PR6a0u+3cXdUNEz6ucNmUBYgccncxEqZVpMgc=; b=lvesP1gnNoO1J971iT10piUXXUpA67WNtpiGm7PjOlTmZ2buzoCOrPGPlz2Z6MeezA mHPl2T7HxjVxFZIV3++tcKDke7tWX5IjVqjy1UhwL9ySE/VHqQoTQqPZUjcheAVVJjfn iyi/ZScfxk/SGgHZ9ThBtEEWvGCTOvtN1IrTE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=lGr5Uqr4XOmSdDwWpkHcAfawnCiS62nMqjsVLrew3+V4rCOGyUIf9pvkLODqP3BrCx zEgerv1mhvjUGtx9fzXd0kqi5VzLCQG3IoW6CpMMmBL93urHgb5PWY9grLQkGlD7CE3r w4fU+3pRIwaWP885Op5RzRgXJNgcSW+XBUTW8=
Received: by 10.227.152.8 with SMTP id e8mr3247734wbw.175.1287777366113; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.142.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a17sm2837118wbe.18.2010.10.22.12.56.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4CC1EC4C.9080803@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:55:56 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
References: <4CC0C319.1040400@gmail.com> <43f701cb7201$9c9a9020$d5cfb060$@com> <4CC1C8BA.1050403@it.uc3m.es> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653432A10A@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653432A10A@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful@tools.ietf.org>, 'Se-young Yu' <syu051@aucklanduni.ac.nz>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Very late query on stateful NAT64
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:54:29 -0000

On 2010-10-23 06:27, Dave Thaler wrote:
> [...]
>>> Would it be helpful to add a citation to "Section 4.3 of [RFC4787]"
>>> during that document's AUTH48?
>>>
>>> (The wording should be tweaked, anyway, from "MAY choose not to
>>> extend" to "MAY choose to not extend".)
> 
> I agree with the above.

I would certainly not object, but only if this can really be done,
with AD consent, during the 48 hours of AUTH48. I don't want to
hold up this RFC for a second ;-)

   Brian