IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 4EB441A038F; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:45:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 sFuvYY3o4wgu; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22a.google.com (mail-ig0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A54F1A1A06; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id r2so20347829igi.1 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:45:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=wvduQrb/DNIskAQxmMjEKLGKlhbQ48D/WbXWelw2wnY=; b=bV+UibFQ3hvR3PosxFVU21KQWIlOD8Ju9t+w80Ua89POOvCd9Y18NC5ZQpgBPkB5Ft 4C8zDYvPlopPbuow7kx9ltVGZ8f9MyWftpzyRHSJ/AcMAoMibdTbWocNkKahqEtuj9/Y f+L+nqLR+s7xJ+JGqgJ+YpsZMSyL/+v39OO5xlvt3+rHrzQQr0Du2tSa+sZcwO8wPavt qDQePkQo+qunh1/L5XjCwBg/18c+OumfqQ9rKr8gbq48ScMxyfVROrynjPMGimj0ZISI DbdyiAurogkuNnMHFJC22J7jIuKPMJ/suzibd1briOuX6IteX+vCF9NyYPkJMwzo/m82 i5Zw==
X-Received: by 10.107.11.88 with SMTP id v85mr11374637ioi.46.1417722343527; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm4829645igp.16.2014.12.04.11.45.41 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:45:42 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9D782332-D5D0-45A5-972C-101D07712302"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <547FDA42.7030500@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:45:36 -0800
Message-Id: <68743816-9C26-4D6D-94CD-024754195286@gmail.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <87498266-8A59-40F8-B987-D51D9828BB33@nominum.com> <547FDA42.7030500@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/COjup3zrJVgp4Wp1E45oZz3CQp0
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:45:48 -0000

On Dec 3, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/12/2014 16:06, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We have effectively gotten to the point of depletion of IPV4 addresses, and the world has not come to an end.  I don't see any need to reclassify this RFC as a standard and think doing so would cause confusion in the community and be harmful to the Internet.
>> 
>> If you think this shouldn't be a standard, why didn't you object when MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6 were last-called?
> 
> I can't answer for Bob, but those documents were the result of
> a pretty laborious rough consensus process in Softwire and would
> have been very hard to challenge that consensus. Also, if I'm
> not mistaken, those solutions all explicitly involve transport
> of IPv4 via IPv6 (as does XLAT464); A+P is just orthgonal to IPv6.

+1

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email