Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 C8E261295FB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:25:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 hTYEIeki3HuL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (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 536191295E1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id x75so14735657vke.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:25:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9VkoS88Y+TN2j70K6EG7+QnynxD8pQsa+BUvbovFeUk=; b=ttd9Z2dD8JUUvvRGhR0yOCEWUMAREgIwjcafo1ZdztQqP55UxwaR4OqJMimdlZT+68 UmS5XP53M7vZmKZSsS9DxrIpfRe+egFzeNGlPtF7RwDmliW0uZSy5YY1WUCPFz+R6rNp TJWIAyVDSf3VCAbsQfjHm4EkNAoIrWOQndRE6KzPQVZ6MRvfVRP9oi8f+jV876Vj7eAv siQvUJ45cdEv/1GQv34OtE8adprMSam81eq8d/iKguECnJeX79aJDg1na6FPmYwBxSp4 hrM2rTAc8hkHy6EsQinidtpKvmJb0SySinUdCMcfU0u92LmSj6d7xJxKIBSLd9OTYDXK KuIw==
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=9VkoS88Y+TN2j70K6EG7+QnynxD8pQsa+BUvbovFeUk=; b=ccW/u31Fh701bzfb+zFAzkD5hX8QSTxCEkh0ZpXgVCZLAD2t8tptH1h+6hITk0G45f UEjVPzV8YvxdVCiAcYRGfLtDPT+OvuSFYp9dpr9OC4yK4gVEnGVz8kCvEiZ8d9qBytPB c1YNiRmG3YcwunvVcqK/u6Bi24WQ8bEqxrZbQOz4Jjlz8lhklbEaFH5Eo4jccLwmQf0b faQFpT3AdW3y0H3M2hKlTk+4LXKbXmTIz8LaWeaZnCmAcHxIkaOLIwqxFOGnx8Yt3lb8 R1bhedlpqWva5k8Q68nXGsIXV1xAWiNS5kCG+IIdcfRKSF6/4koFga19u7qsXB3yZzOC nmXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39klhn4HvMy037nSbBctn+a9tg+Ng6/EFhhsluQ5OSH0BOPBFI7OoydbN2RO8odbCOQ4u6ixT654A4Nm+Sl+
X-Received: by 10.31.248.193 with SMTP id w184mr18386750vkh.10.1487831106291; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:25:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:24:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3f6b3814-34ee-e8e4-3746-85b3e7e208d8@si6networks.com>
References: <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <068ce975-8b1e-a7c5-abba-2bfc1d904d70@gmail.com> <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark> <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net> <7960ff2d-359f-429c-6e82-ef592f90bf53@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1W+AVt4Dixo9epB5VazxBsVMD+mrshwaE=n7SuX6eGDw@mail.gmail.com> <m2a89dveop.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1igJiL_2BVi=RL_Wkd6V0O6WaPJ5fMS+ggVkTRAOdPXw@mail.gmail.com> <3f6b3814-34ee-e8e4-3746-85b3e7e208d8@si6networks.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:24:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0LHCT9_3QzaDY=XKWwSsA5CtE-4EqaQsp_Fp_3-Y56GA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c14bd2a93cdf005492cac98
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/OhHkWJ_cxy473QgCvcdyfFv2gFs>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:25:09 -0000

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>;
wrote:

> > (I do also happen to think that it would be better if we waited a decade
> > before changing this, because we're only 5 or so years into large-scale
> > deployment that will hopefully last at least 3 or 4 decades. However, I
> > don't expect many people to agree with me on that, so I'm not trying to
> > make that argument here.)
>
> Isn't that actually an argument for waiting before moving rfc4291bis to
> full standard?
>
> If you'd wait to change it, why would you want to cast this into stone
> now? So that, later you can argue that "it's a full standard document...
> so we shouldn't change it"?


I don't see why that argument would carry any weight. Full standards can be
changed and updated, too.

What I most care about is that if we make fundamental changes like this,
then it's not done as part of a reclassification, and the working group has
its say.

Whether the document says "full standard" or "draft standard" is not as
important as whether it says the right thing.