IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Mon, 20 March 2017 00:20 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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 8A1A7129434; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 fZxX7H0ytN_g; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (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 B0F6412702E; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-c3fff70000000a06-a8-58ced9d3cf7f
Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id ED.9F.02566.3D9DEC85; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:19:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:19:54 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Topic: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHSoQ+vtzlHxC1V3kSVc+LLDJ9iTA==
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:19:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4892552B-1467-480C-8BFF-CE468D85221D@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23B4D3B3-BFCD-4CCC-AC7E-9A57F4CFB460"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoO71m+ciDM6uYLR4tnE+i8XLs++Z HJg8liz5yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVcWPOA8aCNtOKu5MusDcwLjLqYuTkkBAwkWh9N5m9 i5GLQ0hgPaNEz7IlrCAJIYHljBKrZuaA2GxARRt2fmYCsUUEbCRm7uoFquHgEBZwkZh3Owwi 7CnR9vEIK4StJzH5ZScziM0ioCrRsr0RLM4rYC/xY/YUNhCbUUBM4vupNWAjmQXEJW49mc8E cY+IxMOLp9kgbFGJl4//sULYShJzXl9jBrmTWWAKo8TfhjvsEEMFJU7OfMIygVFwFpJZs5DV zUJSB1GkLbFs4WvmWUA/MAvoSExeyAgRNpV4ffQjlG0tMePXQTYIW1FiSvdD9gWMHKsYOUqL C3Jy040MNzECY+CYBJvjDsa9vZ6HGAU4GJV4eD/MORchxJpYVlyZe4hRBaj10YbVFxilWPLy 81KVRHiFeM5HCPGmJFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2KU5mBREue9HnI/XEggPbEkNTs1tSC1CCbLxMEp 1cBYdPThd1sbr0PtXLsjsh1P/9KY6B50z2d6X6N47ZY8HcH/28Sr3BOYj0uv/uewrOqh69oH Ufvu9G1kUXJNCm5m7Squl114UsImy17lRXuz5hQmnm2VW/8LS5sqf2r/8iN0U4HkD9WrKRxy JYXMrq/cGn59X2XYcqz0AMNsvp3OThpnHx/236/EUpyRaKjFXFScCACaYNdfiQIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QWZPBtgKDHVr2OOvkONBC_l5yFg>
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, 20 Mar 2017 00:20:02 -0000
Hi all, Thanks to everyone who commented during the IETF Last Call of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07. The IETF last call discussion for this draft was passionate (and sometimes heated). The discussion was mainly focused on the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addressing and the associated text in Section 2.4. I have had a lot of private one to one and group discussions with several folks who had commented and contributed text suggestions to get a better idea of their concerns. There seems to be a strong divide between parts of the community on whether this restriction should stay or be relaxed. Looking at the viewpoints expressed and how wide apart they are, it has become clear that there is a lack of consensus to advance the current draft as Internet Standard. Based on this lack of consensus, I have decided to return the draft back to the working group to continue discussion. Thanks Suresh
- IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc… Suresh Krishnan