IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@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 E4B961AD37F; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:34:46 -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 k9ObhEYYHzsv; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B8A41A1A70; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id q107so12348699qgd.7 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:34:43 -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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hgnM7CARM+5T+Zu3p3gQCjCBBGHvc41wzImwAZM8bi8=; b=xmKRYJVAD31RI8lzUFEAQAsPA3WdbP8y3lhdb4zZY3+24LUXWfLPRSjtIaMbEoQPkt O1UX5Bs+MtBUM5uQx3xVqUn7e1uOg7ehR1TXTEv7RZff+yyKPnlSnSiLxLxY/O4TTCX/ CkxBdXh+ADphT8D6RoP1OAwKbmbD+hRD3tfUlqK8WnRzdccHGMdjZd7Ui6r35eVINczb M5QzTa2mRFwzv4TpSH1ozQ9JfptzNvzVuK7ltWxa3+E7FwBr+fhLFjzSDoCS9r2mVUO9 ynioHQ5gWL2qkBarzlY9004IdGTyMoFIFDFpc7Yj9CdDWnt1cD7hIoT+3atV2tz28E9P gxoQ==
X-Received: by 10.224.22.6 with SMTP id l6mr17181305qab.31.1417700083613; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from che-vpn-cluster-2-309.cisco.com (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o37sm26582560qgd.3.2014.12.04.05.34.41 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <31A28A6F-70EB-4333-8FA0-7E71A45F2356@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:34:40 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F010EEC-4430-4087-9EBE-71E932D94769@gmail.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <87498266-8A59-40F8-B987-D51D9828BB33@nominum.com> <BD47A3B6-64D1-4FBC-8353-4970F808F092@surrey.ac.uk> <31A28A6F-70EB-4333-8FA0-7E71A45F2356@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/f9SnP1uXyoH4LDPQsMzYqik0V-w
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@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 13:34:47 -0000

On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:23 AM 12/4/14, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:00 PM, <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
>> That's an ad-hominem argument that has no bearing on the current proposal.
> 
> It's not "ad hominem" to ask someone why they think one thing is different from another.   I actually agree with Bob that the abstract to 6346 says something that's not true, and it needs to be changed (I hadn't thought about it before he pointed out the problem).   I asked Bob why he didn't object to the other proposals because I wanted to know.   I doubt he was unaware of them.
> 
It would help me understand your question (as a 3rd party to the conversation) if you would say more about why you think an objection to the tex Bob quoted from RFC 6346 would be related to objections to MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6.

- Ralph

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email