IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Pete Resnick's Abstain on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Wed, 22 January 2014 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 A259F1A0192; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 5UH5eYi4cEpq; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070551A012C; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id ex4so85867wid.3 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=+vHOjyFPc5XLzPJYBno+MJhyDV5Rap8ncGKGGCGpy24=; b=vqLbrOAC9uWUwFc9nhZ429VO9dwgucLQb70g6G+laL3TfezaqPsG80B5DTosw9sLKq kAzgE+OBxkt+Bq6f04wLjHfMMR7go5kjobHlhffsoi0NCqPkyf0CdjF7Mr8gALpfF9K7 iseWdqszg0fmkHKyHa2Qa8C8ZSN0DmJfRi4ktRzw/9JkZo+Py1LrdADMXg3fKviOau7d eUHMg9iT5NDWrIdKdcTtTfu4SE9UMEXby4c+BXulfemS+TEikOPkXlq28UmiIc1GZH4v v500jr1jmKKxF8yAXC7BoVAsleVykWsczW2Ed4AMcCiLfh885Iby9RHDNVZRLgqDPU9x M8vg==
X-Received: by 10.194.83.9 with SMTP id m9mr994919wjy.39.1390432614953; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id eg1sm19999072wib.0.2014.01.22.15.16.51 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:53 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7E5366CD-B50D-4F27-AE2B-51B75E5D03D6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Pete Resnick's Abstain on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52E03F1D.3000307@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:49 -0800
Message-Id: <47E8B622-5F85-414A-B266-87B0C998E4CD@gmail.com>
References: <20140122192018.8692.82071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52E02C0C.7080901@si6networks.com> <52E0322C.1000301@qti.qualcomm.com> <52E03DCB.4060101@gont.com.ar> <52E03F1D.3000307@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, The IESG <iesg@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: <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: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:16:58 -0000

Brian,

> 
> And that vendor will be smacked eventually.  I see Pete's point and I
> agree that this document could be Informational.  Especially since the
> WG *just* adopted a document that will be BCP giving guidance on which
> IID generation mechanisms are preferred.
> 

While I don't think debating which IETF label to put on this document is a very big issue as compared to the problem this draft solves, I have a question about what will happen if we agree to change it to Informational.  Will this require a new IETF last call, or sending it back to the working group and starting the process over?

If it is more than resubmitting a new draft, then I think this falls into the category of the "Perfect is the enemy of good".  

Bob

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status