IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 24 July 2020 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 6EAA73A0FBE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 A4L2bOymNeJJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B63703A0D58 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 88340 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2020 16:42:11 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 24 Jul 2020 16:42:11 -0000
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <E00B0B8E-434A-486D-AB0D-8BE12ECE30BD@mnot.net> <20200724151459.GD10435@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <A0CE866D-575C-4A32-B009-F26447C11013@akamai.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <bd4fce7b-8944-0bd0-e154-daa682dc87df@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 02:00:12 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A0CE866D-575C-4A32-B009-F26447C11013@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_o5Zyx1Yg7zX22JytepOIGllw5Q>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:59:56 -0000

Salz, Rich wrote:

> Language evolves.  As do standards.

Evolution needs time.

> Nobody will ever need more than 32bits of IP address.

See what happened to poor IPv6 for these 15 years.

No, I don't think IPv6 necessary especially because properly
architected NAT can enjoy the full end to end transparency.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email