IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 850A3129B8D; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com header.d=pobox.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 3Y05YonJpEJc; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FFF6129B89; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6918A886; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=6JU2f/Gs0td8 gkKvMOQ8qw6sOsk=; b=TtSmwyVzEZI18TYLuVg4I8Rj3xo7NWgrzcKJVqO79+NY C2MDZ1qpDIDovmK0P2qMaQFxupaSViyYWOYRZAihl1AzECN7pTcYZqGMZCl2BhnY zrp9IvE8+xFq58sWbz9CJRZ8jfuuvRAl8891KmftDj4Iy0aON04mvCnHUBid4k4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=etujrn GpsRg7g4QpTUEMrxzsgO9GxKLMI9L2cF3tAELUQXnYKTqSN1JjdlASgkf7DGkr9m jfm0qnteGmzQ4x2z70fB+CwNS74MHjHFP0/U2CrrTi8oq4Lr4YercOBStri3Zi6T YqxAcOhfShJqOJYWlEfAw0VcN3mvEoEBWfuws=
Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210A88A885; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-f178.google.com (unknown [209.85.216.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A0B08A87C; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-f178.google.com with SMTP id m36so26193368qtb.0; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6b4kzOrKug4b9psypFlMcs6k2ZD52t4o5Gl/0kyAsSnJySayMh KE3E63AU7gvATt2yTkbbzOYGY+9bQg==
X-Received: by 10.237.37.142 with SMTP id x14mr3792360qtc.160.1492624502739; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.40.180 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <be53c185-5ebb-d2ea-cb82-36c0047f9ab6@kuehlewind.net>
References: <CACL_3VGXAu0Ys+avfiA=3+PZ=7o-V7NOgSdWT2s81TBZF-pSrA@mail.gmail.com> <be53c185-5ebb-d2ea-cb82-36c0047f9ab6@kuehlewind.net>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:54:42 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VG8V57L+bUzRVuuizvMF5xfo0H_gRH_XE7LTwPwps41Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VG8V57L+bUzRVuuizvMF5xfo0H_gRH_XE7LTwPwps41Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 50801A38-2529-11E7-9E61-E680B56B9B0B-06080547!pb-smtp1.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Qi1828Y9hGUkXIzzvalaETU0YLM>
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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:55:07 -0000

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> This text does not make any normative statement on the question if the
> behavior specified in RFC3168 should be implemented or not. It only says
> please look at RFC3168 and make an informed decision if you want to confirm
> to the behavior that is specified in RFC3168 in addition to implementing the
> spec in this document. However, yes, this statement is true for all IPv6
> implementation. I don't see a problem here...

Nor do I. As it happens I prefer the text proposed by Bob Hinden (with
David Black's modification) but I believe that the effect is essentially the
same as the text you proposed. So it seems that the discussion is boiling
down to editorial issues, and I am happy to leave that between you,
the shepherd, and the document editor.

Thanks

Mike Heard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email