Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 10 December 2013 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE301AE091; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:46:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vQvIuUc0dqqZ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D5F1ADF74; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-107-239.cisco.com (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 418F45FAD; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:45:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A6998C43-A043-41BF-B4C5-E81F3227A474"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <46BE373C-D476-4D83-B014-56B77FD3D67E@nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:44:44 +0100
Message-Id: <39280481-09C5-41ED-B79E-99DBBD329F44@employees.org>
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <A583EFC3-71BB-4962-875C-4AB775D13491@delong.com> <46BE373C-D476-4D83-B014-56B77FD3D67E@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:46:37 -0000

>> In no case do I believe that M or O provide any indication about IA_PD.
> 
> You should read RFC 7084 again, then.
> 
> Standards say what they say, not what you think they should say!   :)

RFC7084 isn't a standard.
can we please stop this now. having the M/O debate one more time is unlikely to provide a different result than the previous times we have had this debate.

Ole