Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 B777C129865 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:51:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 tQdJxhTp5XTC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4BCB129697 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v1OEpUpx016288 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:51:30 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A28CB20B781 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:51:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF2B202207 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:51:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1OEpUAe018674 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:51:30 +0100
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <998c29ba-64a6-2827-eb3d-f1e9a7b68b38@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:51:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/U39Vk64Hw9t3NmDcD_wsU2nQvZg>
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:51:34 -0000


Le 23/02/2017 à 23:50, james woodyatt a écrit :
> On Feb 23, 2017, at 14:37, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
>>
>> If you feel that network interfaces longer than /64 shouldn't be
>> used, then please feel free to add text to this ID which reassigns
>> rfc6164 to historical.  […]
>
> Hmm, since RFC 6164 is a Standards Track document, it’s already
> covered as a legitimate exception under the text I already proposed,
> which seemed mostly well received, except by people who seem to think
> it’s not enough to recognize standard IETF exceptions to the /64
> subnet prefix requirement.
>
> Some participants seem to be promising they will continue objecting
> to the promotion of RFC 4291 to full Standard until the /64 subnet
> prefix length requirement is dropped entirely. I think those
> objections should not block the advancement of this draft.

I agree.  Advancement should be pursued.  But dont drop the objections.

Alex

>> As withering aphorisms seem to be the order of the day, either have
>> your cake or eat your cake.
>
> Shorter james: have some cake.
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>