IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-01

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 04 January 2017 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 3B81D12940E; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:07:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] 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 NSexkrOMapVR; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 B0876128E19; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mbp-4.local ([IPv6:2607:fb90:80a2:cb36:fcfd:2be3:e77e:6987]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v0487CHo076522 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:07:13 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: nagasaki.bogus.com: Host [IPv6:2607:fb90:80a2:cb36:fcfd:2be3:e77e:6987] claimed to be mbp-4.local
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-01
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Russ White <russ@riw.us>
References: <CACL8_9EaZ-JM-MSwzUZijAZqu12dAfA+rtHoraKcn9U3Bt7JAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xYRjWirdAdN2+-THR2d-wmama1j-HF8ANCCgZ4-zozvA@mail.gmail.com> <F38BC011-B0C0-4539-B5CC-17458EAA6989@gmail.com> <027a01d262e7$f30b30d0$d9219270$@riw.us> <9A4806E3-70B8-46E7-921D-4BA0817B16C7@gmail.com> <88D7C907-1BD2-40E7-9DEA-5BAF42688046@gmail.com> <245a034f-1e15-2556-c39e-f950bea5263f@si6networks.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <43943ea7-6ae2-91f0-9518-a3c61fcb0a22@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:07:11 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/50.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <245a034f-1e15-2556-c39e-f950bea5263f@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RvBCQNpG5R7SAsBHpsm2Mj7lCxqO5PaDB"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QiwXonOpPEp9Khw-5XXbXF5yewY>
Cc: Mohammad Moghaddas <mohammad@moghaddas.com>, draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs@tools.ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@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: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:07:18 -0000

On 1/2/17 10:07 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 01/01/2017 10:26 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Russ White <russ@riw.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is indeed an individual draft, and to my knowledge no given
>>>>> working
>>>> group
>>>>> has been asked for opinions. That said, we welcome any and all
>>>>> review. Specifically, I have copied v6ops and 6man on this
>>>>> note.
>>>> We would like to present it to a WG as a work item--which WG
>>>> would be best for this one? There are some sections that need to
>>>> be filled before we present it, I think.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Russ
>>> Personaly opinion: this isn’t about IPv6 per se, it is about the
>>> operation of an IPv6 network. I’d suggest v6ops.
>> Note that I’m not precluding 6man input. I’m asking what change or
>> clarification in IPv6 implementations (e.g., IPv6 Maintenance) is
>> called for. I don’t think there are any. I think it comments on how
>> IPv6 is used operationally, and by extension, what an operator might
>> expect to find in IPv6 implementations he deploys.
> I somewhat agree, but: wasn't the Node Requirements RFC produced by
> 6man? -- this one should be similar in nature...
and 6204 / 7084 / 7849 were done in v6ops, it's not that unusual a style
of document generally speaking.
>
> Thanks,

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email