IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

"Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <cdl_forward@cdl.asgaard.org> Thu, 11 December 2014 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cdl_forward@cdl.asgaard.org>
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 D8D5E1A8AAC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:24:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 Y8Fe8tqh5CzL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:24:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.emailarray.com (smtp4.emailarray.com [65.39.216.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE1331A6FA0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 26272 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2014 23:24:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.24.10.65?) (Y2RsQGFzZ2FhcmQub3JnQDE5OC4xNDcuMjI2LjY=) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp4.emailarray.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 11 Dec 2014 23:24:09 -0000
From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl_forward@cdl.asgaard.org>
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
Subject: Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:24:08 -0800
Message-ID: <E82495BD-349C-4F51-AD24-D8E1CB09ECAE@cdl.asgaard.org>
In-Reply-To: <D0AF7BE2.7B0CF%Lee@asgard.org>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net> <D0AE1053.7AA8A%Lee@asgard.org> <AF1B977B-75D4-4AF2-B231-300AF2429317@nominum.com> <CAMm+Lwji9860CKaJB_9xi3ztiVUtP3NZ8AgO1wZAVTKVWW76Nw@mail.gmail.com> <D0AF7BE2.7B0CF%Lee@asgard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.8r4576)
X-PolarisMail-Flags: x
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sAMVc_daO5mOEsffO_wS-O_6VXM
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:38:21 -0800
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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, 11 Dec 2014 23:24:13 -0000

On 11 Dec 2014, at 14:11, Lee Howard wrote:

> From:  Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
> Date:  Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:18 PM
> To:  Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
> Cc:  Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Bob 
> Hinden
> <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF 
> Discussion
> <ietf@ietf.org>
> Subject:  Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed 
> Standard
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
>>>>> My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care 
>>>>> about IPv4
>>>>> anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF.
>>>
>>> This is why I was so surprised by the controversy.   Sigh
>>
>> Unfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the 
>> best way
>> to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6 
>> 'better' and to
>> sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage.
>
> IPv6 IS the mitigation of the consequences of IPv4 shortage.
>
> But my opinion is well-documented in draft-george-ipv6-support.
>
>>
>> The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old 
>> strategy.
>> Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the same 
>> so that
>> the transition cost is minimal.
>
> It isn't clear to me that a change in strategy is required. To remain 
> on
> topic, will moving this Experimental RFC to Proposed Standard make the
> transition any easier?
>
> The goal isn't IPv6, though‹the goal is a functioning, interoperable
> Internet. I believe we have consensus that IPv6 is the best mechanism 
> to
> achieve that. I think I see consensus that some transition tools are
> temporarily useful as people wait for others to deploy. Do we need a
> Proposed Standard for those temporary transition tools?
>
> Lee

Hear hear Lee!

	Christopher


--
李柯睿
Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio
Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email