IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 06 March 2016 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 35E4B1B3B37; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:33:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 RXkRDgTH0eHr; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:33:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFDFC1B3B35; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:33:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2571; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457303631; x=1458513231; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=GYTOHGeEoWUHZdocxOJDFXCRMMq3kdsJr088fJAcIRE=; b=i8rspb6K6yhw9lrN/rHsLS03mcWg3BwIBmyvsL+gzUb5X4EFrimCJjym VzNO0TT5vdXZOo81J/w6tkMe3QS0qk0Zu2QqjYnyxDqslTXOr9mebv3EC 8IGEQ10bdi7MsY5WLUyDEl0K+RuF3k36vTeoXSCIQ6lRwVqySUS5onLFU Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ASAwCir9xW/4cNJK1dgzqBPwa6OA6BaYYPAoEcOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQQEBAQMBeQULAgEIDgouMiUCBA4FDogMCL8xAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBDQiIBoJOh2WBDwWXKgGDEYFliHaBY40XhXmIWwEeAUODZGqIP34BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,548,1449532800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="82951373"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Mar 2016 22:33:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u26MXoY1007294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 6 Mar 2016 22:33:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 16:33:50 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 16:33:50 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01
Thread-Index: AQHRde+0XINEmTsVNUSwWDtps2cQLp9KPXEAgACCjICAAqk8gA==
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:33:49 +0000
Message-ID: <B98CA008-EB3B-495B-BF63-857A58D44580@cisco.com>
References: <56D946D2.4020607@si6networks.com> <56DA0756.8070801@gmail.com> <56DA74D9.40304@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <56DA74D9.40304@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.212.140]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2C45EE69-955F-46AC-801A-F488A04B5640"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4_Vo2ZMu0V0jSkC7s78pxizDbM8>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling@ietf.org>
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: <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: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:33:53 -0000

Something to discuss wth the chairs, I suppose. The first question is whether 2460bis is ready about when it is, or one is later.

I'd like to believe this is close to done, and I suspect Bob would like to believe 2460bis is close to done.... If so, the chairs may prefer to somehow incorporate it into 2460bis and ship it.

> On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 03/04/2016 07:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>> Also, I would suggest sequencing this draft to come out *after* 2460bis.
>> It might have the distinction of being the first RFC to update 2460bis.
> 
> Not that I like to point this out, but...
> One one hand, if we're working on rfc2460bis, then one would argue that
> if we're to intentionally stall draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling so
> that it gets published after rfc2460bis, then why not incorporate it in
> rfc2460bis?
> 
> I'd expect that this doc is published soon & as is: It updates
> RFC2460... and then rfc2460bis picks RFC2460 plus updates.
> 
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email