IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Fri, 21 July 2017 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 AFD77131BC3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
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_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 DMN4dOzGhto3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4121C129B34 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v6L7edWt004994; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:40:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201707210740.v6L7edWt004994@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:40:56 +1200. <71240a1a-6e8f-3509-a2f2-dc38308ff1c1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:40:39 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/72N-Z_rF3tzLnnkTUj4sxp70OME>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:57:21 -0000

When following a number it can get a specific meaning: in a postal
address bis (and ter) means something was inserted between two
numbers (usually between N and N + 2 as streets have an even side
and an odd side).

In the IETF context I agree "bis" means more a revamp and major
changes come from consolidation with other related documents
published after.

So in the RFC4941bis particular case the name is really arguable
and IMHO if the new mechanism is not backward compatible the bis
name should not be used.

Now the I-D name is temporary so it should be more important to
discuss about its content...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email