IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Wed, 20 February 2019 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jan@go6.si>
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 45C5712D829 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:03:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=go6.si
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 hdbriGiE3hS9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::23]) (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 9A727130DD8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E44265E6B; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:02:46 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at go6.si
Received: from mx.go6lab.si ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31Lfm_YfxZwd; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:02:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.go6.si (mail.go6.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.go6.si", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (not verified)) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BBA565A2D; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:02:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from haktar.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:5::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Jan Zorz", Issuer "COMODO RSA Client Authentication and Secure Email CA" (not verified)) (Authenticated sender: jan) by mail.go6.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D4CB804D3; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:02:42 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1550649764; bh=mHXw0liJlJN2oOYUTV/tZsO4tJFyta0d1TfaCjEK6+s=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GiyjMm6ANp7iViGKeFzLo16Zd5fv8YZyMA1NI1o8ZSrlDjrIL8CFCLED9uBSAjorX RUlxfoZjfu19XPf7VHOosJwxKqB3tmSc1+TCKdTIFqmzsZJUqAnnr0GdH7xMaNH+FI luAAjlZQTZjr1sOM3Z6njTYYfisD6evqL1wF1jQo=
Subject: Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <155053352190.25856.12031845488827430669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <fe9eecc0-b41a-53c5-5e17-7f8d732cb7cf@si6networks.com> <105E9F49-A9E7-4C77-963D-0B37997FF7AE@consulintel.es> <61d3daff-927f-b289-197a-01ff504aeba9@go6.si> <7f0bd1d3-2bc2-69d1-1ff9-91e4da104e3e@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902191102200.24327@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190219102427.GK33237@ernw.de> <fd19943c-1601-5e0e-b402-bd5164c50f07@go6.si> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A7FC3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <90e628b2-cb91-29a2-2ec0-9afa0dd25b51@go6.si>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:02:40 +0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A7FC3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6Cm0lpo2b2f-BdNDbBOZqmEPVtc>
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:24 -0000

On 19/02/2019 15:25, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>>> tl;dr: that document doesn't have legally binding character.
>>
>> If that's the case, then a reference should be removed from the I-D.
>>
>> <joke>
>> Or even better - we could say that despite all the rumors and FUD - even in
>> Germany that's not legally binding and therefore operators can do whatever
>> they want with their architecture :) </joke>
> 
> <joke>Since all IETF RFCs (including BCPs) and RIPE advice are also not legally binding, maybe we should remove all those references, too?</joke>
> 
> What makes RIPE and IETF advice "better" than others' advice?
> Barbara

Consensus, hopefully :)

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email