Re: Expiration impending: <draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt>

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 23 November 2020 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 987A83A0FCE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:05:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 wdqIQC2obpXO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7D883A0E9F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:05:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1khI5R-0000IUC; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:05:21 +0100
Message-Id: <m1khI5R-0000IUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Expiration impending: <draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <160603202606.8188.11893701417034577472@ietfa.amsl.com> <7B0EBC9E-4831-4005-98D9-5010CD1097F6@cisco.com> <m1kgnYw-0000I5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <183B2A48-011A-4575-866D-8F19610EA94C@cisco.com> <m1kh9Z6-00007vC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <54ed3cb0-983d-aac6-57f6-8f209a932632@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:41:52 +1300 ." <54ed3cb0-983d-aac6-57f6-8f209a932632@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:05:21 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HxYQuVIR_x4TpOM_OojZLNXHP8E>
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:05:46 -0000

>If you're objecting that 6lo has done work that shouldn't have been done,
>that's another matter entirely.

I don't have an opinion about what 6lo did. I do think that applying RFC 6775
to wifi is at the moment the wrong thing to do.