Re: [edu-discuss] solution to RFC 4941 I-D action : draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy.txt -
SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 07 May 2013 08:19 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: edu-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: edu-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED9021F9299 for <edu-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 01:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dnLbqKj3Nk21 for <edu-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 01:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC43121F9050 for <edu-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 01:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r478JRFH000619; Tue, 7 May 2013 01:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1367914772; bh=ApflQlpzajUQbJw4lGCQrNaWq5Hu7pMqR2f4bqDE3f8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NnL72v7K9sZsU5vUjpkcgZSYZ9ei7dPw1K6GCPAK7lAzKz1AWYotQdMMqKB+V7UfC MrXMgMYSHxLMo+u5QlhbNJ7aGRNdPc3t76AVbrmofAu0M62yn7d+aRs5oxwyiUFv2/ 03/ags7f6DjZLERcyKUuTSQbrCOisANj4vayF8LM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1367914772; i=@resistor.net; bh=ApflQlpzajUQbJw4lGCQrNaWq5Hu7pMqR2f4bqDE3f8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=BluWFYA6Zr9+6qUF6UDrp+zgNN1aqxYU/4CbIb30BJ7yUQZi+lK1eYSyd9GuG2WFi 5Mu+Udmu0EiNN9xcmhLkALRWzJDxxpCA5mf6AhZXTNQGAhHGfEWJzrH/5Iy2lCarae XQTWi74njbmw9J+vkvM8/uR9XskRwgGxfvh0mpf0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130507010020.0c0667a0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 01:18:54 -0700
To: Hosnieh Rafiee <ietf@rozanak.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <001401ce4af7$962f8fc0$c28eaf40$@rozanak.com>
References: <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA0FF1E6E1@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <OF9B334605.3F5D177D-ON48257B64.001C0657-48257B64.001C421C@zte.com.cn> <6.2.5.6.2.20130506231929.0b647f30@resistor.net> <001401ce4af7$962f8fc0$c28eaf40$@rozanak.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: edu-discuss@ietf.org, Sujing Zhou <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [edu-discuss] solution to RFC 4941 I-D action : draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy.txt -
X-BeenThere: edu-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Education Discussion <edu-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/edu-discuss>, <mailto:edu-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/edu-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:edu-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:edu-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-discuss>, <mailto:edu-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 08:19:37 -0000
Hi Hosnieh, [Following up on edu-discuss@ietf.org] At 00:50 07-05-2013, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: >In my opinion, it is better to update the current RFCs or obsolete them >instead of adding more specifications which will result on confusing >vendors. Of course, it is my point of view and some people are disagree with >that. They would like to have several optional standards and let the >implementers to choose. Proposed Standards were supposed to be "optional". Implementers choosing to implement them was a good test for running code (code which is actually used on the Internet). The specifications can then be published as Standard. If you don't have time to track all the Proposed Standard you could implement the Standard and achieve at least minimum interoperability. It does not work in practice. There isn't any Standard for IPv6. The Standard for SMTP (email) is old and it is not worth basing an implementation on that. I am curious about what you find difficult about IETF specifications. Note that I am not going to disagree with your opinion or argue that what you said is wrong. :-) Regards, -sm