Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 24 January 2021 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 4960F3A0E3B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:22:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, 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=joelhalpern.com
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 DUpELKRQhDAW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 254DF3A0E37 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DNyv56zjnz6GFxg; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:22:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1611505329; bh=JRm9s8ExNgR7ouvCPwuqJF+NFY3UUP3KE/oe8JZSyTg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=TdGvw20iDsRteSlq1CWVUhHwCDn+qF6UbnyN6piwJgpdLS/EvPtyXlPeZgpVYSEwY bmLSvYYRZIgqxPHSmzhB0NWcng54S0r6g5lhBPcojvr1X1VNR5lUTBYkUBenqP29/x EUBrq9xdWfND61uMQeI6KWRRku/KmWdtGIKL06Kc=
X-Quarantine-ID: <uiPnuSGrgKkL>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DNyv41nC7z6GD7f; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com> <239F4968-4B84-4FCF-9F64-65D6892D6FA7@strayalpha.com> <85fca9a5-14f3-c875-c69a-33cb565ac508@si6networks.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <7b85a9a8-ee03-f274-835e-f8476e56f3c2@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:22:05 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <85fca9a5-14f3-c875-c69a-33cb565ac508@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gJQOEMhHVS6_TdvCPvezaz4iB5o>
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: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 16:22:11 -0000

Fernando, I understand you do no think the PSP behavior of the network 
programming draft is compliant with other IPv6 RFCs.
Please stop asserting that non-compliance as fact.  The IESG (the body 
the IETF has agreed rules on such things) determined that PSP did not 
violate RFC 8200.
While I do not like PSP, I understand the reasoning they used, and 
respect that it is their job to make such decisions.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/23/2021 7:54 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 23/1/21 14:12, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2021, at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One *internet-draft* certainly doesn't undermine E2E. However, I guess
>>> that an *RFC* published as a "Proposed Standard" probably does 
>>> (undermine) E2E?
>>
>> Not when it doesn’t update the hundreds of other standards that don’t.
> 
> It doesn't formally update them, true. But it is a de-facto update: 
> behavior that goes against such other standards has been approved as PS.
> 
>