Re: Standard status of RFC 3879

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 21 January 2009 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipngwg-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipngwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3D03A69E9; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C333A69E9 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yQGHWVA5dzy9 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663B93A6937 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so3895306rvf.49 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lC3yN0QHMl8fYJpC3VDm+9sfz9doq8HN/fb0jEtGBzQ=; b=JcH4r9GgQyhGk7LJ2Qb7SpSN3LlHj1l00v7yBHE+1fSU85ueljNcdpMPAmxsMXVOw+ 6FSNXfXbqkdo4q6q4nc1zoK/jBNfib1CmB7OZHLMwQHji8e4lMVV7RjL1hT4IdO1ZufM gwV21jQjZpbybPh3I2xXuXxxh9FHGLo3gt+oE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=FrWnPxmlwCFuoWNIzSaEStd7uqu4FfMM8Bo4P2a3qlXpfGm5/258QPz5CwQ1ivB+Jz 2PMKWQMHU0UQOwELWqw4VEOdiR/lJTOGhbJ3mIT0kY6OQTX9h6pU2Aasyr4316GdYu0D NhEhlqhb8mfzGj4DOukyiC04HVWwDmiO+TtaI=
Received: by 10.141.45.16 with SMTP id x16mr2735245rvj.7.1232569863953; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f21sm16327032rvb.7.2009.01.21.12.31.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49778604.4010703@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:31:00 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: Standard status of RFC 3879
References: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A19D3AB6593@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <E5653CB3-3296-4E32-BD83-658EE8343DC5@nokia.com> <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A19D3AB6792@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <alpine.LRH.2.00.0901212131170.5113@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0901212131170.5113@netcore.fi>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "bob.hinden@nokia.com" <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Pekka,

On 2009-01-22 08:35, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> What did you have in mind?  Is there a reason to advance it?
>>
>> I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed
>> standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it is now
>> obsolete?"
> 
> FWIW, I wouldn't mind advancing it if there is significant new evidence
> or experience to document at the same time.  If not (perhaps you were
> referring to this), just updating on the standards track and keeping the
> document unchanged, doesn't seem to have that much point given we need
> to put energy to other work as well.

Well, I think Christian's point is valid. There are still text books that
list site-local as valid, and in my XP box I find:

       DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 130.216.xx.xxx
                                           130.216.xx.xxx
                                           fec0:0:0:ffff::1%2
                                           fec0:0:0:ffff::2%2
                                           fec0:0:0:ffff::3%2

I think that simply reclassifying 3879 as DS would be a Good Thing
and requires minimal effort.

> 
> Site-locals and ULAs is one area where I suspect our understanding of
> the situation has improved, and will continue to improve.  Timing the
> update properly to gather that understanding is probably a good idea.

I don't believe there is enough deployment experience with ULAs yet.
I wouldn't personally want to couple the 3879 issue with re-opening
the ULA discussion.

     Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------