Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB111A1B0C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:30:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 85bxgmbCuuxU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1131C1A1AEA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:30:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=501; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418736620; x=1419946220; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UfZKAEfz2InLYS0n1eOZLAKAOIAuANhTC5LKb2HPwSc=; b=iWekn5eAG0n3W9u6J3y5AP1mjzwF6AhZMb5yrFx58SRfVhFDDbuGqJOm 4xDxbR9qKd6lEad9LPmTcz+HXazhpHf7eK6osvaB1ocuEgCW0FOHyxuo3 EBxL1QFzDbylnzA0XLUGvP2LfLw2HwmZY8RKfevzRLzkUc/rgZX8bX5Ss 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,587,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="272245388"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2014 13:30:18 +0000
Received: from [64.103.108.123] (dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan301-64-103-108-123.cisco.com [64.103.108.123]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBGDU9mi031633; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:30:15 GMT
Message-ID: <549033E4.5060704@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:30:12 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
References: <AF1B977B-75D4-4AF2-B231-300AF2429317@nominum.com> <CAMm+Lwji9860CKaJB_9xi3ztiVUtP3NZ8AgO1wZAVTKVWW76Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADC+-gR+sFUELOrdfVj5e3hW-KZoftotbhvEwF6aotZvq5wOkw@mail.gmail.com> <1DF3E368-D915-458C-8009-C508735D3C88@nominum.com> <5488FEE0.2030400@gmail.com> <84E9B4C0-A2E2-41BF-955A-1B125BBE63B1@nominum.com> <54890CD3.2050800@gmail.com> <20141211034501.1776A25434AE@rock.dv.isc.org> <20141212051204.GG39631@shrubbery.net> <20141212061533.90B952556F33@rock.dv.isc.org> <20141215220815.GS3371@shrubbery.net> <20141215232455.77E83257375A@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141215232455.77E83257375A@rock.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9G_GQe_IeOsPEx-p50GjxBObK70
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:30:27 -0000

On 15/12/2014 23:24, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> If a consumer device does not support IPv6 as well as IPv4 it should
> be sent back to the manufacture / supplier as "not fit for purpose"
> and a full refund should be requested.  It shouldn't cost the
> consumer anything other than some time to get their devices fixed.
>
Whether that makes sense depends on the rest of the selection
criteria. The IPv6 alternatives might well be insufficient in some
other important characteristic.

Stewart