Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Mon, 06 March 2017 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
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 9BA8C129404 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:58:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 SNKO2mE3yad3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:58:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 C876A12995F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id t193so72654858wmt.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:51:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Arco9YdENWuQizg9Uo74b/uvY64gj2K/BU7zET6UJrk=; b=f2RZkqiDlkJOeG2pRAgNSDaxOsKDU1lKQqcFWyHyQaaBb7BlcFdxSUDm/0aVWIlX0H 9VuvAM+Fzyiuo7oV7OwUjFkIWrd/j/8NafyCVUMVDawWi3wICfRYvf+G/oS4/DCX+Cm/ aLXHsx6zYGLk6OQMPHDavDgfoAtfQlzgAL62vf+oiAGrfsU0s92+HzFbpc+pSCkBX5Ec xdSMVO5kmtv94mck5t0bi1v1cKaWK3YJzyr0MeVddUNHpuI1UPP1QNqr7OqkAI5h0LIl 0k3IlputFqXm4p6QjF+5shaAzPbxwu/iFbP/L1nqj/SE18RMqBShq9tkQ6X1+CfFmyAS Is3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Arco9YdENWuQizg9Uo74b/uvY64gj2K/BU7zET6UJrk=; b=KeABKwb+mWOBZvNQiNmOpBYqKy5RdnqE/LoBuVHlma5yjtNSuhFKbx3CKeXvWZhgyn IjXQdECxp93UpXH/NMwkkZmyhTlXL9EulRXeHq3zWMhw2qc9qNqEhyBzVCk5tnxMlPUL rvyO6d75PVWKgBRHLmvIQ/5gX9PQomsb31tOQw2CeNCe/2Dmd71QLvWngZYr1IZt3Ex0 fcPF1p4QvxvXp3HnGb5zfuQJNXS9Qus1NvVeUaPLYxvEsVKT7ToA0Zy8TswY9OLJGmg9 7bp3qeu+k2brBlgkOJ9Z6NnOkvIe9uHeD7PH9XLevUm556cnBav+Xr+GHuvTO7igZFSD NQ+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lfCehkPzKNblb6MGyPCCF6VsUZ7HtmYm/a3PKHl8GOLGWZHLK1IcLTQNujKsjaVv3KmDbf2G8Pcf0nmQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.186.70 with SMTP id k67mr13931263wmf.65.1488826278232; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:51:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.182.162 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:51:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:208c:10:e914:6955:797a:af14]
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau3BOVo3UhyGEdxKR-YgqpLqJVxV7uswCCXFsaQoKRaKHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:51:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CACWOCC-R0qnPfjKHZ7njxDsVOq8iew5-VuGq+tRCe4vjLVDxAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NHr8NsZ0aeQ7L9Vmafsz13BIxxY>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 06 Mar 2017 18:58:07 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; wrote:
> Wow. That's a lot of for what started off as a reclassification. I don't
> think it's a good idea to attempt to wordsmith RFC4291 hoping that one of
> the formulations we end up with will somehow reach consensus. Instead, I
> would suggest another approach: see what the problems with 4291 are, *write
> them down*, and only then write a document explaining what should be changed
> and why.
>
> In other words: start with a problem statement.

I suggest to first wait for feedback from the IESG and finish that
process. The last call period ended 5 days ago.

Regards,

Job