IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: about violation of standards

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 24 April 2019 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 14DD7120154 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 uY-zmas-m0tc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 A8DC5120329 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9E0C2AF; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:02:33 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1556082153; bh=qLUMhxf3ymGf6HkhS4JD6pBaILDSimdK3oRO+IVVPG8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=D3lPyL3l6pVlvIrCQaTsMr9T1XpnyjgNjQDx6kpNujKvxyEoXnbOOheMTpmuxHKe6 TTqUlrNUatSJCAWXXrf4xH/UyGeO7g0kr2xk7o3eNuM2IAj9gsDJatqCNBhdfFu/OD aGUhyH/fAxRdKTVfVLQRnGrnhxQuEhT81xkWE6J0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C08E9F; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:02:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:02:33 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: about violation of standards
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1jWHc1SMm=-xX0Oo5V4bo4VQBeQ5-CztJhP3y9006HRw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904240659270.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <bb7f7606-2adf-e669-8bcd-e41f17800782@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd9frqX5-yeVPj8MYXpZ4737HqK1gmfD9cQV3A-Ea5HrQ@mail.gmail.com> <6bd5db47-408a-727e-5c13-f34a3465f986@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqfTLqRbLp4fLu2ASZuZ+4G5c2G+RXkO92kXfLgPTqBnng@mail.gmail.com> <EEF00EA7-2AAF-403F-99AD-1D53ED18E8B3@cisco.com> <47631828-121F-402D-8165-969684C1101B@employees.org> <MN2PR11MB35655B36540829AEE5275964D8230@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <1066F69A-824F-4D6D-B221-8EFBAD15E15A@employees.org> <018c407a-b127-8724-d1ee-e19e3b084a60@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1jWHc1SMm=-xX0Oo5V4bo4VQBeQ5-CztJhP3y9006HRw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Aa6rn2K67FdRfhMQF6JUQm2KD1w>
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, 24 Apr 2019 05:02:39 -0000

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019, Gyan Mishra wrote:

> So with this new link local revision we are trying to address the 
> pitfalls with the current RFC 4291 RFC addressing schema for link local. 
> Is that correct?

Can someone please start a new mail thread (or draft) where there is a 
succinct problem statement and proposal for solution?

I spent non-trivial amount of time yesterday trying to make sense out of 
all the emails that had been sent in the past week. I am not against 
changing the standards if there is a problem that the current standards 
doesn't address. I just want to understand it and the past 50-100 emails 
has been causing me more confusion than clarity.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email