IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 03 March 2020 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 797893A078B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 14:59:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 bxqDbgT94-ee for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 14:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAF163A078A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 14:59:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54AF08321E; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:53:48 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933)
To: otroan@employees.org, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20200302032940.9DE2EF406F3@rfc-editor.org> <3e4b460e-b77a-e04b-d7fc-d4cb889c284d@gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348A46BE210A777CDE302C6AEE70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <m1j95Bl-0000JPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <C228886A-066B-4834-B2B1-D680CA9DBC79@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <dbd28837-a33f-fc1f-c36a-07980f4cace2@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 19:53:37 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C228886A-066B-4834-B2B1-D680CA9DBC79@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KKuXGTPBaU6wODJ1nH2jBjGEkr8>
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, 03 Mar 2020 22:59:02 -0000

On 3/3/20 11:13, otroan@employees.org wrote:
[....]
> 
> This reflects my sentiment too. RFC8200 is the core IPv6 specification and reflects what is required by every IPv6 implementation to interoperate.
> We should not change the core specification to accommodate whatever consenting adults chose to do in a limited domain.

THe IETF hasn't embraced any concept of limited domains. We don't have 
"IPv6 for the datacenter", "global IPv6", or "IPv6 for limited domains".


> The purview of spring is to ensure that the mechanism is described and does not have any unintended collateral damage (with the help from 6man).

If spring wants to describe what a vendor has done, then Informational 
or Experimental might be the right tracks. And the IESG should probably 
add a nice boilerplate to the front page, stating that the document 
doesn't represent IETF consensus, and that it violates existing standards.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email