IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Tue, 19 February 2019 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 7AEE2128B14 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 06:26:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 hSia7w976dbF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 06:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 BD24E1277D2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 06:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1JEPBW0011057; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:25:52 -0500
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qrjgb1sq9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:25:52 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1JEPoGi008335; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:25:51 -0500
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [135.47.91.178]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1JEPif6008157; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:25:45 -0500
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 3529A40002CB; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:25:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.155]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 24B6D40002B6; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:25:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:25:43 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: 'Jan Zorz - Go6' <jan@go6.si>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)
Thread-Topic: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHUx/Ea7Gm/VjMK9EqZTnA15tUFu6XnMj0AgAACwQCAAAUFAIAABIGAgAAWz4D//9f9kA==
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:25:43 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A7FC3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <155053352190.25856.12031845488827430669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <fe9eecc0-b41a-53c5-5e17-7f8d732cb7cf@si6networks.com> <105E9F49-A9E7-4C77-963D-0B37997FF7AE@consulintel.es> <61d3daff-927f-b289-197a-01ff504aeba9@go6.si> <7f0bd1d3-2bc2-69d1-1ff9-91e4da104e3e@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902191102200.24327@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190219102427.GK33237@ernw.de> <fd19943c-1601-5e0e-b402-bd5164c50f07@go6.si>
In-Reply-To: <fd19943c-1601-5e0e-b402-bd5164c50f07@go6.si>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.61.166.232]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-19_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=539 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902190108
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IQko7cK5qaKfNI_-r7_Dj7MKEx8>
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: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:26:09 -0000

> > tl;dr: that document doesn't have legally binding character.
> 
> If that's the case, then a reference should be removed from the I-D.
> 
> <joke>
> Or even better - we could say that despite all the rumors and FUD - even in
> Germany that's not legally binding and therefore operators can do whatever
> they want with their architecture :) </joke>

<joke>Since all IETF RFCs (including BCPs) and RIPE advice are also not legally binding, maybe we should remove all those references, too?</joke>

What makes RIPE and IETF advice "better" than others' advice?
Barbara

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email