IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 13 May 2019 01:28 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263441200C5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 18:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 ekhrSiH5utrc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 18:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 97B2D120047 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2019 18:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.248.59] ([104.153.224.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4D1SM7d052516; Mon, 13 May 2019 01:28:45 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: nagasaki.bogus.com: Host [104.153.224.169] claimed to be [172.19.248.59]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 18:28:15 -0700
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <214355EB-17AD-4424-B73A-3B6429F78C0C@bogus.com>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0FQKbVyh40zw183lN88rKXRfyiM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 01:28:54 -0000


> On Apr 29, 2019, at 03:02, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> At the 6man meeting at IETF 104 in Prague there was support to close the working group last call and advance 
> draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05 to the IESG.
> 
> This call is to confirm that decision on the mailing list.
> 
> Please give objections and comments to this decision to the mailing list, by 2019-05-13.

I support this draft. I think many of the concerns associated with this draft are well considered, unfortunately they also cannot fundamentally be resolved using other signals in meaningfully better ways. 

If you're going to use RA options to communicate the presence of routers on a subnet as well is rules for their use and extended to communication other network management properties  as we did in 5175 and 8106 then we've already conceded that it is approve to use for a facility like this. 

We can reasonably expect hosts that have other overriding considerations to ignore such signals, just as today they select their own name servers. 

> 
> Best regards,
> Ole, 6man co-chair
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email