IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-02 - Respond by Oct 27, 2014

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 27 October 2014 04:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A3D1A6FBB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 a5tYLZCmMjZ8 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7045F1A1A93 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 352D4DA0085 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:13:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C9553E07D; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:10:20 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B6F6B1D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:10:07 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A784CAC3-911E-419F-8ED3-0EBC09DD68C4@nominum.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B6C78C7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B6F6B1D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/O_61_H1qq5S000gqSAqH8AoDPyY
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-02 - Respond by Oct 27, 2014
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:10:53 -0000

On Oct 26, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> While I am ok advancing this work if someone feels they need it (I would prefer we not deploy this technology and just move to IPv6 – especially as this requires making changes to hosts),

It's needed for a softwires document that's going through IESG review this week.

> In the next paragraph, RFC 6346 is mentioned – this is an Experimental document. It is only an informational reference, so at least that may be OK. But it seems a bit odd that the text here is “This extension is only suitable for specific architectures based on Address plus Port model” when that is experimental? Even draft-ietf-softwire-map-t (-06) is going for Experimental, not standards track. (Though draft-ietf-softwire-map is going for Standards Track.)

The IESG is in the process of promoting that to standards track.   It's not experimental anymore.

Thanks for doing a more thorough technical review than I've yet had time for.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email