[Int-area] Apologies/fumble while hiding from IPv10 [Was: WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)]

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 19 April 2017 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D36120454 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 03:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.081
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 OINmISZsCM6B for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 03:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7B851286B1 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 03:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v3JADnIX025202 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:13:49 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (251.129.113.87.dyn.plus.net [87.113.129.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v3JADmX2025156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:13:49 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <int-area@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:13:45 +0100
Message-ID: <03e001d2b8f5$a17e6840$e47b38c0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdK49TUKvCEYUNDWTX6OgXuGPvWo5w==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-23016.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.460-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--3.460-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: vyKRAY7HOrIyLaonsERWTpV0Vx03XunfGbJMFqqIm9wNcckEPxfz2Ahe 6NI+f4LlL0THpg/duvO+cxMBxtB5NrgSigd+50bafFMOK/HqfAZBXoFkn1Z4VrMpZn8Wx17x5se P+3nPvM3j0rj7aZ13xIZ33gc99frfbBkLGPxXO7v/QotNualNMQBzfxM7vRJxmyiLZetSf8nJ4y 0wP1A6AGP1xUvrlhy1DV8DVAd6AO/dB/CxWTRRuwihQpoXbuXFOvs1qa3iu1L5OZE9+/KwYr8eI EmokRegvO8DPUKidQ2pr+Zyas07hWqSBU9suBmmv1pStiXts5oysKibcSKe325pemREzNPqkc8v ZYcPwmShurVaY1hyX4xdVwkeE3a3UyOqrFz2uoieqD9WtJkSIw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/zBmlUXP0dkcKeJwDTSZ-YR87lMY>
Subject: [Int-area] Apologies/fumble while hiding from IPv10 [Was: WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)]
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:13:56 -0000

Hi,

Sorry, I zoned out (aka unsubscribed) to avoid the fascinating discussions on
IPv10 with their varied subject lines.

Wassim wrote:

> We would like to start a WG adoption call for draft-bonica-intarea-eping-04
> ("Extended Ping (Xping)"):
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bonica-intarea-eping-04.txt
>
> Please indicate your preferences on the mailling list. The deadline is April
28th.

I think this is a no-brainer!
That we have got this far without a proper ping tool for unnumbered interfaces
seems remarkable.
That we should go on without a proper ping tool for link-local addressed
interfaces seems unwise.

I support adoption of (and rapid completion of) this document.

Adrian