Re: [dhcwg] [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 23 June 2020 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1757D3A0912 for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.655
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zGtuVjKPDJaA for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AF963A0924 for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q198so11903549qka.2 for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=V2SJjly2QWR5fAOQq5d6AmdoLM9j0A2qil5tVevX3qk=; b=isbDeU6mpr+EOZUaeP3oDHHL9nOSX/DNUqKugR1rqPqFIQ+HeG1LV7VMhgQvHDh98o LkVVuV/WqqB5s3cNzdUyjDRZDqal9z9Jx3l56WeP57fJnRtZWW5mljIVysTuzyQUteMg Xz1TuapPIhk4UQad5seevJEeDGP0rHvvgizpwfBGpqOxtf/0+PguGmP/CPKMykplqTgr RhR0nVaqGVLFYT2y59zzc3jHQxGRArhLoY5furTlrm7M9eEEKvsOLaaktJW2r5jbIknO vyJfuP5L+dgmlgvJhSzR5itG9ioo7BY4CHqjWc/cQOJBa1PItIiM+o0tiDQv+RPe/fOU cF0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=V2SJjly2QWR5fAOQq5d6AmdoLM9j0A2qil5tVevX3qk=; b=jd81smd5QJ2jSdOsGh+VgLu9gWpjdwvO0mDzSFwsRWzbWoWH+tTw80KYHoKxEIsUnG pyDKIIqrYXc9fAd4VQuNFyVyszvU08TBgR6miYSzaZ3PZBKm/I3Gi8OSk3eqbaCqUF+w i4jfE5eNUGV9VjYVsX6KPcQjJEYsCy5NMlJD3RdBKVVWSUrJ35rzRV/MHwDs0OHjnXXy u6JT/pCaJ1URlrLcI+ja+JmzAMT4iEDE+YtnVFsLVFV8OAjB3ZTjhmtkQDjxKpGACVlt Zte6S/HMqNGpJBCtSM7En8wmD6cF29Qv2vHrBwHrVnmCGrpvGMqfwFeDaCmdvijHNPwr xxoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jM29qsjcVXESz3c1sXdR3SL34dNnL9zGyGcQVB59ygE6oGlC4 t0jr1U6Lc2rdcO7zJgFA2B63xA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+z6H6kO4xW7ZJ5THRkeryjb5jCBK++TsF4FiMMfqV8QQi2gqK3fE+2SJsuLz9HXSOWoyjeA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6642:: with SMTP id a63mr22336978qkc.5.1592936628091; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:d960:5b86:b767:9aba? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:d960:5b86:b767:9aba]) by with ESMTPSA id o4sm1346509qtb.17.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_80E8B49C-B9E1-4035-A3F6-18B6951C3E61"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:23:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IETF <>, Michael Richardson <>, "" <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <32056.1592933199@localhost> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:24:02 -0000

On Jun 23, 2020, at 1:39 PM, Philip Homburg <> wrote:
> I don't know if you consider <> an ancient protocol, but this
> is typically something that breaks with NAT64.

I don’t think this is really relevant to the IoT directorate. A constrained device is not going to be doing this in production.  If your goal is to discuss the question of whether IPv6-only can ever be legitimately asserted on a network, that’s not something that you should Cc: the IoT directorate on.

That said, hard-coded RFC1918 IP literals in URLs are useful for testing, but are simply bad practice for web sites. If your web site relies on this, and end users lose as a consequence, it’s due to your incompetence that they are losing, not due to any failing of the network infrastructure.