Re: [Dime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-04: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 04 August 2015 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8001A1B3D; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 GypE76nShllw; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818EC1A1B20; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkgc186 with SMTP id c186so4925614vkg.0; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dlH1uztTWRj5yw6Hilo6fPoPO4vnO1m7Vfg4YdbEkbU=; b=tOWuqmo0iJzLpFBk5wGg1O/RLMJBUQDZZ25h8EEOgeI0BSQQ67ZAHpO1kUyXVouzDz kXfR3l/p66VVd7pkxA/nCYyFGNE16DKBsLjEAELZFMRN+t90IHLcwbamDLkb40PxKjoh wC4YCT/rty5dCP5rUHaBw6oH2YKiHkraTas3j7EDEU5LSkfHx/uOFjeSCKs6Fc01hmqG kAaE/S2x2d6wACYjKMGT3PFYMVda44+LH20/mOsa0/FVaOS5tiXQxJBk2uvrYTpSt9L0 hgVCLazUkefLzTMNymqm6YNNH+dl5cJksepO2CFZfkbcH9wUpBlL0JfZxDW1s0qwuKr6 g1ig==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.165.201 with SMTP id za9mr5380113vdb.86.1438702062702; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.63.1 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150804152348.1378.21580.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150804152348.1378.21580.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:27:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-d60NaxB9+0ROeJV0ArrgARzc+okwbeD7GaR1668uZzJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c20f1a62a711051c7ded93"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/knXKeOMqrKYiPwXRDaWZr3JFyGk>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning@ietf.org, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:30:19 -0000

Just curious. Does anyone have an updated address for Sun Qiong?

I'm getting

<sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn> (expanded from
    <expand-draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning@virtual.ietf.org>): host
    mail.ctbri.com.cn[219.142.69.47] said: 554 5.7.1 Error: invalid sender
by
    SPF from 4.31.198.44 (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
Original-Recipient: rfc822;
expand-draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning@virtual.ietf.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.ctbri.com.cn
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 554 5.7.1 Error: invalid sender by SPF from
4.31.198.44

Thanks!

Spencer

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-04: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A nit - this text
>
>    [RFC6519] sets a precedent for representation of the IPv6 address of
>    a border router as an FQDN.  This can be dereferenced to one or more
>    IP addresses by the provisioning system before being passed to the
>    customer equipment, or left as an FQDN as it as in [RFC6334].
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> seems garbled.
>
> In this text
>
> 3.4.1.  Delegated-IPv6-Prefix As the IPv6 Binding Prefix
>
>    The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix AVP (AVP code 123) is of type Octetstring,
>    and is defined in [RFC4818].  Within the Tunnel-Source-Pref-Or-Addr
>    AVP, it conveys the IPv6 Binding Prefix assigned to the CE.  Valid
>    values in the Prefix-Length field are from 0 to 128 (full address),
>    although a more restricted range is obviously more reasonable.
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I wonder if "obviously more reasonable" is the right thing to say. Is
> this saying something like "more scalable" (compared to bunches of
> 128-bit IP binding prefixes)? Or am I misunderstanding the point?
>
>
>