Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 30 March 2017 18:19 UTC
Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C50129485; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Njob3pAkQhtJ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 B2517127B60; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id r45so46627871qte.3; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ARl0jkgKyJjitiWQZ0d6FZsABzzpgnt0+RV6zGNLQWQ=; b=WivoRZryw7ueFoFzVjW9HN+Vf1tpVhb+GqC6ypu8EjNjfEmg+RTIgIZej0A28Ou3ga YlwhmgMKfXngGyI0BUfSk2UG67MYcRijLeRGj6ot6X/A8NIZewQ/Es54JlhB7EJXdqqS fP0AEx3w8Fsn+zNNBunl/sJqQsEZQEQmgNFvqf+XIkDF5sgXa+wrW70Uio5DE9faiduG f6eZPjZsGulGTKAvx0VXGzoGGoJlOGixLPZ4zgSW2lSuUjDka/QzedYDqJfuWHiqdGm0 NWxm0MHthoTJQGuWt5j7brOw4MWJu4zNcprWzg4Zhj8sZ9rNFILu/rfRBDBh1OcVRZ21 wq9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ARl0jkgKyJjitiWQZ0d6FZsABzzpgnt0+RV6zGNLQWQ=; b=roNzCE1tFpwtwlRb8xH8A8WEnf1WLdtozmeDaeGCNfZObNRrZHvUDGa+bKZ4ZY8oJn BRyyvj86QEGAdW0c3uJQn99o4SomG9rFU7cpZ7G2e/1ogDn1zvaGb+LEogAmgC6ceGZE bUgjaii8Lz1vTltanxv2lL7b+qhmGp2Jn6teZJAs0CiOwwKIl2ZStyWnEZDymKrC6CYZ ZhtXRix5he6aUWeLMqYTmCvlkDumExvuzqzSzT2ExEnD1gCF9cnNF/2RQY+UoqRn+PPB Q+T9L2G6S0CCMDKm0IVXkOuJOe+BluqMmRwLXCPCDcyS+/yWtNw+cacuYNzQ4TSHh/u4 ZdwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0aZv+DDm5v7KPClvHpjeyHR05FmL0SAlNAD/fU66A0nQgPKffSR5L2uQVPOprgAN5hJOGh6RDk9lgkUg==
X-Received: by 10.200.42.151 with SMTP id b23mr1100732qta.163.1490897969544; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.61.204 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERk_cKGB6a0SQd560cMiOzT4KbSic6fCCwQWrhNkNEcO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <6B662F87-B0E6-4613-B406-8A22CA95DFA5@cisco.com> <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com> <198e3116-5448-2fdf-4da7-4811a0133f05@gmail.com> <50E4A84C-F0ED-45ED-AA89-5713CBD8F9E0@gmail.com> <5aebc8ed-f873-94e9-1ae4-dab7b3a8ebef@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERk8kHWyBY3GPp21-pgrL_SsShaLkrn4UdecFeQPYamSEg@mail.gmail.com> <A0F19A98-7DBE-4616-B949-529ED2A81D62@ericsson.com> <CA+b+ERk_cKGB6a0SQd560cMiOzT4KbSic6fCCwQWrhNkNEcO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:28 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AzNg4_Wz-DcOKgXtJXKLwmgPGwI
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfBt_uytbgQ+=zO4ed9jnc9p=FgPuLH-efgdjFKa+C4jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0X1jOdETk0YKjMkb1lqiNn-L93I>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:19:33 -0000
At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:41 -0500, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: > Ok so till a new document updates 2460bis any further work on EHs is frozen > as it would reference 2460bis with new text. That was my main point. I don't get the logic...an "update" can start immediately once such a draft new proposal is available. The update won't be formally completed until it gets some formal state like a standard track RFC, and it will take time, but that wouldn't necessarily mean a further work is "frozen"; it's not very clear to me what this term means in this context, but it's quite common development takes place while the spec is being discussed as a draft, and it's also not uncommon some commercial operators even start deploying it. On the other hand, even if we now agreed that rfc2460bis should explicitly allow such "further work", the discussion itself would take long and wouldn't be completed soon. But IMO it's irresponsible to leave the text ambiguous and let some other people misunderstand it, possibly even more casually and/or in the global Internet, for the comfort of some particular future work. I think we're now trying to help avoid the latest clarification in rfc2460bis to be interpreted as an "outright ban" of future updates while still trying to be responsible for the soundness of the global Internet. In my understanding Brian's additional text is one such attempt (I also proposed text in that sense at the time of WGLC, although it wasn't adopted in the end). If that text is still not enough we can discuss how to phrase it. And, while I suspect people who wanted to keep the ambiguity will never be satisfied with the result as long as the added clarification remains, I believe that's a reasonable compromise to achieve a balance between being responsible and not (unintentionally) discouraging future updates. -- JINMEI, Tatuya
- IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Tim Chown
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Leddy, John
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Voyer, Daniel
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Joe Touch
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Joe Touch
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Fernando Gont
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Joe Touch
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Mark Smith
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Tim Chown
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Xing Li
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… otroan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Stewart Bryant
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Leddy, John
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Leddy, John
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Tim Chown
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Mark Townsley
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Mark Townsley
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Leddy, John
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- RE: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Ackermann, Michael
- RE: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… 神明達哉
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Tim Chown
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Tim Chown
- RE: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Ackermann, Michael
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Mark Smith
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… otroan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… otroan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Tim Chown
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Jen Linkova
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Martin Rex
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Fernando Gont
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man… Suresh Krishnan