Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Wed, 15 February 2017 10:18 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 CF48C1296AF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:18:44 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 qRACteTaP26F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457601294BD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2017 10:18:43 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34EED788F; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:18:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=zkmW95BAHZTQ38zdC4Z9FXRUOkM=; b= ZkVp6aiHVam30aB1ce548GDTFd8bX2R5f9mriiUh6Geii+X/U7qOD+6i44b8rs32 4uNoM/38aT+z4iTY3ICFqWmNLqoEVW2JAe7JLxCR9SGpaIncR7bhDhN07IFiiDZw c08+uylAezffO9GI5V0S5n/pP8D1WIKmFbxdpnGfa50=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=Ls20WnHDSL0fN1iotjzfsqJ G6H7soRlSEGTNtAE6Uq54dA2MGq3u0M8OA7Zi3Pdg9FamO93tv5R7GukNklHzRdz h8nxp1csF8xrB1yxpDJL5C6CgWnR7CUuU+f5zgRt7AN4WdY201p0+HlBOz34yDhq wlSxqCHcheVOj1Rogev8=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E61FD788B; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:18:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA048B05D00; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:18:51 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <8D0C4CBD-8AB1-42A4-ACF6-6F2E40F9C464@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_31A68F48-1047-4EEE-AE77-1A1CD6FF8A5C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:18:50 +0100
In-Reply-To: <eedfd457-14a7-1c98-f765-68f2c5a84860@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <1179DE45-3971-44A1-9630-28F76D2D652D@employees.org> <2ea64b3c-d69d-6b6c-cb04-fe63727a8bee@si6networks.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqcKu1XVQOPzcd+8b68WcQyjH9QmszaSvKWhT8SvHJ0ppg@mail.gmail.com> <m2y3xdpmjd.wl-randy@psg.com> <5333378B-0F8D-4966-82B2-DFF9639CEC7D@fugue.com> <3a180e40-936b-956b-9fc3-5ecdd4d905ee@gmail.com> <m2poippisc.wl-randy@psg.com> <13830253-67ab-cb26-4fa0-f40a24f1a5bc@gmail.com> <76D87C97-1ECB-4E92-8FE7-ADAF464DB8FD@employees.org> <a0aaa86f-db08-4363-f9c6-0b55ceadc3b9@gmail.com> <48b1988d-2074-3e60-62ba-5943e6ec8b91@joelhalpern.com> <523D6E9B-5504-4AA6-81B7-81B68E742E6E@employees.org> <79f04816-0249-c0b8-a72a-5d5bdf77d3f5@joelhalpern.com> <35A94D95-63B8-41BA-8CA1-010544DE1252@employees.org> <eedfd457-14a7-1c98-f765-68f2c5a84860@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KDsP2aI2jhXNrgvcZCCnDzU8bXI>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:18:45 -0000

>>> Ole, it is true that we write in English, and there is always room for
>>> "interpretation", sometimes reasoanble room, sometimes not.
>>> 
>>> But in this case we have a demonstrated difference in how people
>>> understand the existing text.  When we have such a demonstrated
>>> difference, we have an obligation to address it.
>> 
>> This particular issue has caused no interoperability issue,
> 
> May I ask what's the data that support this statement?

From the shepherd's writeup:
   IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.),
   including proprietary and open source.  A list of products that have
   received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at:

   https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4

> You certainly have no way of knowing this, or whether interoperability
> issues may arise in the future.

Yes, we do know if our protocols have interoperability issues.
Have you implemented RFC2460? I have. So have many others on this list.
In the context of implementing 2460 there just is no ambiguity and this issue will never arise.

What you are talking about is something else. You are talking about the hypothetical "What if someone standardised something new in the future?"

Ole