IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-01.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 18 March 2019 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 D5E3E1271FF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 5hRBNkddzdxR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 533D9124B19 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 766A9FECBF24; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 18:40:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686EE10CFADE; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:39:58 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-01.txt
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr34U0rA=RQRjxGGxTcs7viQW8Mo37XRHDA8=A8e=vO=ig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:39:58 +0100
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B4F42F7C-47E8-437A-A215-36A77A77BF9F@employees.org>
References: <154602855914.21618.6591622501322594455.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <414CE9D9-6103-4955-9D37-3A424F64F99D@employees.org> <6abc51c5-214c-c09e-662b-5e8f0f4f8ca7@gmail.com> <5DFDC23A-68EC-4271-A917-1B925EEBE1E8@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr34U0rA=RQRjxGGxTcs7viQW8Mo37XRHDA8=A8e=vO=ig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IJYqpHgGRCrQdWa7xXObP6qUFFc>
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, 18 Mar 2019 18:40:03 -0000

> What are the consequences of limiting IETF involvement (expert review only)?
> 
> It’s an experiment we don’t know the outcome.
> If this was used to define new protocols, like Fred was proposing. Or if it was used to define new options like the RA flag, Pref64 or many others that wouldn’t necessarily have IETF consensus to publish… is that a successful experiment? Even if it saw massive deployment.
> 
> It’s an experiment in letting go of power and control of a part of the protocol. Scary? Yes. ;-)
> 
> How is it different from, say, RADIUS vendor options, or DHCP vendor options? 

Vendor options rarely makes it outside of that vendor’s purview.
These would be implementable by anyone who cares. Which I suppose is a good thing.

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email