Re: RFC4890 status was: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-05.txt>
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 03 April 2017 23:04 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 1DD74129455 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 r12YrdxC3Iz8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32624124D6C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id f103so13576770ioi.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XGszZ9S4w+a5CRlIri++wBFbv8PaI64n01daEy1+Pks=; b=qmMJm+Y4iVkLbVpNRz28Apf881arO21GGkRYDg6HDBV+LbFpF3TKCcbuL7yF2BHBbr nY+66LMJPPrlGWqN5PdRIPlcFEQu46kJdCvDdFgcOoN8kElcXFz6eyfgf7VOoy3c/RYS SoqeG9n5dR5oM+Qir1HJy/39BJu0VDP0kvrPsXNvbN6MjawxBUZk903YqQD4wagSUnAr sgudXiwYSbgBgTPCLDPsF0VR74kqiD3ykZm1HEHNkUEfIDMvbly8R4Zx/W8+Aj6iTVWD rOnmeWCkSXu7iJcq1rrq/lNTts3FZJ5ZYfrsh2omSQBW+/OUf4QA1HTdJtLb9yVHx2lK FSyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XGszZ9S4w+a5CRlIri++wBFbv8PaI64n01daEy1+Pks=; b=Wq6fOgZ32JaT9EwwNWtmSb3nhAggBVfopK6QhhW6BtT+xrGWXTgs9mfstjjw7sliaS nEjxNw8UCokimqo2NMp4GVBHS3Awfg1KtVG/D5uS3F5PU+m1UpMkEKjGfLYVBqPGlKfX mh5cLXqPVNnOpVWplL45MtuwOKy1kaz0BqysokAWLN6MtqXPxc7E1w9RcDNIyjZ6Opq/ wVoIkqTFK6tSRtKvXNhZYVkLwPpr2uQaajr1B/hScch9DQT55JvVS4emdV49rL6wGTlf opKgl5foRaJNmFnSRSuSGSJzPTWoVzWElVw5oA+sLg/o8DrswgLdJ3s7aOpqjX4Vohan Ucjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3fyRd8NJvIji3iZj5fjTStfp+0VxK6EPv91Tkpvhm9/vEzyoFJVBFR1h8+63dcJw==
X-Received: by 10.107.185.135 with SMTP id j129mr17963459iof.3.1491260696430; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.11.95] (50-76-68-137-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.76.68.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w188sm6435473itc.6.2017.04.03.16.04.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: RFC4890 status was: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-05.txt>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAN-Dau0RMS-V2bOnVvbs7+BkYrrRyhy583F+4=5mEZL4u+YeCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <c128c0b0-701b-ff4e-8e96-41a7e78c0dea@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:04:54 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0RMS-V2bOnVvbs7+BkYrrRyhy583F+4=5mEZL4u+YeCg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JOxJeAQk4FIQmLVYpv7jstwj5qc>
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: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 23:04:59 -0000
On 04/04/2017 10:48, David Farmer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>>> On 31 Mar 2017, at 16:32, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... >>>> o Added new text in Section 6 to clarify the effect of >>>> ICMPv6 filtering on PMTUD. >>> >>> Perhaps reference RFC4890 here? >> >> Thanks. I think that makes sense. >> > > I had a similar thought, but Tim beat me to it. > > However when reviewing RFC4890, I noticed that it's status is only > Informational. At this point can anyone tell we why we shouldn't consider > advancing RFC4890 to BCP? > > Personally, I was a little shocked it was only Informational. I'm not sure > advancing it will really fix anything, but I don't see what it could hurt, > maybe more people would take it more seriously. I think that needs to be considered along with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6 which is also Informational so far, and cites RFC 4890. In any case it's an Ops Area thing. Brian
- RFC4890 status was: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981b… David Farmer
- Re: RFC4890 status was: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1… Brian E Carpenter