IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC3484 destination address selection rule 2 is buggy

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 13 March 2008 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5550128C930; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.143
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 eSbkOPoU2YEg; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF77B28C962; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
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 5113F28C924 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 od+5YkynDaZS for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (unknown [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6FA28C951 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2DN9b91048740; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:09:37 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <200803132309.m2DN9b91048740@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: RFC3484 destination address selection rule 2 is buggy
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:56:29 +0200. <alpine.LRH.1.00.0803140049440.7689@netcore.fi>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:09:37 +0100
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
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-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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Francis, I don't think BCP status would change this; that's still a 

=> I disagree: the procedure for BCPs is lighter and BTW there is nothing
when you look at it which justifies a standard track (we should not
promote it to a draft standard for instance :-).

   IETF consensus document.  Maybe some implementations could fix their 
   implementations with local hacks without as easily becoming (on paper) 
   incompliant but they can already do this in any case.
   
=> a BCP is far more flexible if you add the term "compliant", and
it is not a surprise a best current practice can change.

I don't believe to make it a BCP will solve automagically all issues
but at least it will repair a historical error.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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