IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard

Hemant Singh <hemantietf@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <hemantietf@gmail.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 AD3AE1295A5; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:41:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 VFn_S2EH0P_X; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::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 3566F1295B5; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v84so70235398oie.3; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:41:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XOPK+688SR63IP27c+kNhA7htoOsBTBFM8SCRNF8I3Y=; b=mwxvouImnM2PFFuNlAGFvFtHJdDme54aMAZrk02F9q7YHWBt5ZnzNl/2glHMcqKGxN 39ayJZO42cUhBOCQX17L2sg/wZW2U0ltwiJkxXFMtyQ+C3430uq7/3rSGC4Au6rjSuQn DW90ObQ7PItuJhAmwsXEZJwDwtva4rQt6LTjnqJ4Hfpq05MlbiffUoZkUWNBVvgyYdTY 6UUosewNvsMUWY4sEDwTH5odsCIWQXOcOZSk2/V05gXQ5Ff8s4foe8UJQzcnsZB7EnoG 32vGzpOBGNuwNoJ3JblsSesWmyIIULnNyRsyzfGEOMohbChtlsSgifIM4lMLcPWaHrUw ECnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XOPK+688SR63IP27c+kNhA7htoOsBTBFM8SCRNF8I3Y=; b=eQ0+L8lwJbbRALeeOBgPR9LjAoDFwS4EguaylsBJg2Ev8U1iYTzfEHQJbm9rX/4ZdZ 5YI1a6v5nPMxR359tQgIlPyvA2PPCyIS+eWDUuC00LQAy4149bOxNknHZtNB7N/XBSRi iXrPN25Ugx/DBWHlPd1WThI0eo8wLP2FOFV87PNM7ViLJWdGdfGamJsHu0KYF+o6pCff +FTeKh3Z6e8pE8ukKx0XctZtwQR4/FcFO8RV3kbQ4Ia26T736DDgBJQmVYmxXNpAeEkg cjzwegMoHjRjnHiY5er9LppWf4RxAUAypFqI2UeYj2UQqnvPOJAtyKNnB/lfkZqRbK8h w7WA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02Ags8/E3S/e4iak0gyMDOnOJfqZ5xM5uhQhnoJFNckwPhyxVi8AMgwJ1Oy4v+9HGJWVjVXl4j+YXTtfg==
X-Received: by 10.202.204.19 with SMTP id c19mr2774115oig.138.1479422503594; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:41:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.15.33 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:41:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2z_Zm82DZf9xusCUXPe=8pChZX7KR+9aEK38htfGge9Hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <451D4151-B805-4A2E-8BAC-B6627C0B669C@employees.org> <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com> <189a5939-71c8-f686-b34c-cbf410d55374@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z_Zm82DZf9xusCUXPe=8pChZX7KR+9aEK38htfGge9Hg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hemant Singh <hemantietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:41:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CABdyVt45-LJxBNqhg4swPB2ia1z8Ecq6nrFB-hBAEV92q-pQ+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11352d36ccb0a8054186e450"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TFeFGzu35dSjj9N4awOFh9bg7XM>
Cc: 6man-chairs@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
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, 17 Nov 2016 22:41:45 -0000

I never liked the use of "processed" whether one is a native speaker of
English or not.   It's too loose.  I prefer:

1. Inspect EH before forwarding or not.
2. Add/Delete EH before forwarding or not.

Hemant


On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> .
>
> I would think in this last case it is likely that at least the term
> "processed" would be understood, because a version of that word is part of
> the acronym CPU.
>
> I'd really like to see it explained how those EH sections if RFC2460 are
> ambiguous before I'd be willing to accept that claim.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email