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

otroan@employees.org Sat, 11 February 2017 12:48 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 39D99129552 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] 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 zHFZ4XtOcUzl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B89126579 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2017 12:48:42 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD010D788A; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:41 -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=L1soXuiNYEzhBBJfN/Tvrb9fdMM=; b= WwPw7wYWt2EItcojaKsvWvifqUcDPi0D861t8kA/+qjVtBqjU46++CUIE2k1toZh 7D9oc5S94o/p5XAb7ElZMdo8+H+tt0CXpdIlUMD2xDzm1pM0JZWPO9rTCHFibQTE WRc4Zq8/PamWcDZ8YD9CB+X8Pi56PjRk4gcAnkOQLzg=
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=Gk0+641++e91ZUn6qGShryj fTpJscV7oM6Ce+/hEyZ99huwFKuzAITd9Vl5jTveBQY+RU2fwSSaf/GrZgFutAGX 0pQZ4fLNclrCI+/mFmmTblHPAS8UN6VomVqi9XgFcaAjP+2cegVD8blEoel+PF/8 Q4p6BJimghIGv2X2nuQ8=
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 A27A0D788E; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777D1894DE74; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:48:41 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <D76BD8B5-7CFE-4EAB-A79A-A9318052C22A@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_29024FD8-2911-4C8C-82F1-F147F4C095AF"; 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: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:48:40 +0100
In-Reply-To: <m2o9y9pg0x.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.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> <m2o9y9pg0x.wl-randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/axa7rKItH3-e5YINPToNHZDgoWg>
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: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:48:43 -0000

>> Leaving the text open to interpretation would make a mockery of
>> promoting it to Standard.
> 
> agree.  but v6 specs seem to like wussing out and leaving the
> opportunity to do wrong things.  i'll bet you a reuben at the corned
> beef factory in chicago that the next try at the addressing architecture
> still does not *unambiguously* state cidr except for slaac.

we're striving to write specifications that ensure interoperability.

is rewriting addresses permitted by the IPv6 architecture?
the intent of the authors were certainly clear, but we still have IPv6 NAT and NPT66.

does 2460 permit 5-tuple based ECMP? clearly not, but we also have to accept reality sometimes.

if you aren't happy with my biases please provide your own.

Best regards,
Ole