IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sun, 16 July 2017 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 504C512EBF4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
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=steffann.nl
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 kcCsxWbZmDMa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 948D0129B2C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9484A; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:53:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1500209607; bh=WdiKxv1ra7RTwloc21c Xgm+d0JQG1HPiT9m17Z58z+8=; b=SLXqbFe2DOO9zh0N8Gld84CoU1+GOpKpc+7 tvgpWXZKFZKQHYujkwBxXGfRPCxTGDBESGtjRmhksxrfVidkS3z3wSBm1tm+r0aj YbqRCfrncl5HTdJkgkDsJ58Sobxz99jEa18X9qV8UjrdbILtrJwox9R2QWXTH3Ds LTr/P3U4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id c1EqOSS7TTep; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:53:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:68b2:827c:4f19:1178] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:68b2:827c:4f19:1178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0346B49; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:53:26 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <D0F996DC-6EB0-4DAC-80AF-CDB50C87F0FE@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0B384C37-DD71-4EF1-AC64-74C3F284315A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:53:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <596B588A.2010701@foobar.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis@tools.ietf.org, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
References: <149909644776.22718.16227939850699261560@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr25jk22qTTqJ-RoxOVTu7=e=vQWWLQZnek-HGCKaZgU=w@mail.gmail.com> <596B4BE1.7020807@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1W0+d-Bj9daqXUsyAEaNE6RHHZBwJ_6SzT0sGhZXdDMw@mail.gmail.com> <596B588A.2010701@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/C2Yvxd5Xrt-zyHbqjYBV71IaKEM>
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:53:33 -0000

Hi,

> Op 16 jul. 2017, om 14:14 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> That's a fair opinion to hold, but the fact of the matter is that a
>> SHOULD for DHCPv6 conflicts with RFC 7934 and RFC 7844.
> 
> "The fact of the matter"? :-)
> 
> There is no conflict here.
> 
> The "SHOULD" that you quoted in rfc7934 refers to how an opinion about
> people ought to run their networks, but does not conflict with the
> SHOULD in 6434bis, which refers to what the IETF is proposing ought to
> be supported on host devices.  These two things are very different indeed.

+1

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email