IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 5B42911E83B4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwyqzLmR4awC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B6511E869F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9LHHFeN013928 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:17:15 -0700
Received: from XCH-NWHT-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.114]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r9LHH1UQ013784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:17:15 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-403.nw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.62) by XCH-NWHT-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:17:13 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.85]) by XCH-BLV-403.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.3.243]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:17:13 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL
Thread-Topic: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL
Thread-Index: AQHOzn8jHEb9dzMx1kyeywzrFKUFx5n/ZMZQ
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:17:12 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831813550A@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <526296B8.5080108@innovationslab.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831813500F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2D191A96-1EF1-4792-8C26-6C7B5D835C72@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181353A9@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <99FA6EFF-E860-4DC1-8BB3-1759F135483A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <99FA6EFF-E860-4DC1-8BB3-1759F135483A@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 21 Oct 2013 17:17:29 -0000

Hi Bob,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:01 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL
> 
> Fred,
> 
> >> I don't think it is appropriate for a draft that is updating an
> >> experimental RFC to update a standards track RFC.  It will cause a
> lot
> >> of confusion in the community.
> >
> > I think then that we would need to re-target SEAL as standards-track,
> > and as obsoleting the previous experimental RFC. I can make that
> > change in the next draft version so that it is clear that we are
> > not trying to make an experimental update a standards track.
> >
> > Then, I guess the next question is whether we want to continue with
> > SEAL as an individual sub or bring it in as a 6man wg item? I am
> > open to either approach.
> 
> I don't know what is appropriate, but there would have to be enough
> interest in taking on this work.  I have only seen one person talking
> about it.

Can I get an agenda slot to talk about it in Vancouver?
 
> But as I said, in it's current state it is not appropriate to update a
> standards track RFC.

OK - I will fix it.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email