IETF Logo Mail Archive

about violation of standards

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 18 April 2019 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 A92C11200B1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 YjRF6BNYokVs for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 CFF1312017A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3IIx82k039143 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:59:08 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E46FC2066CE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:59:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D150A2063C6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:59:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.68.53] ([10.8.68.53]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3IIx75k016757 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:59:08 +0200
To: IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: about violation of standards
Message-ID: <bb7f7606-2adf-e669-8bcd-e41f17800782@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:59:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/88yOE7IlT-nCSyBin06ylpyTpH0>
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: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:59:13 -0000

In private conversation this debate happened:

is an implementation that uses fe80:1::2 address on an interface a 
violation of standards? (RFC 4291 does not allow for '1' to be there).

My point of view is that as long as that mplementation is widely used, 
that is not a violation of standards.  Rather, the situation makes it 
that that standard is not in agreement with implementations.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email