Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Fri, 17 December 2010 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF413A6BA8 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:52:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p7rvrFZd5ezm for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp110-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (smtp110-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [76.13.13.231]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A8D433A6B92 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 34565 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2010 16:53:58 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1292604838; bh=sKXxwvriT1gDTWniONGkItsu+/PjQtO1mlLpmKqhNkI=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Date:Subject:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IZHymBZbskPUPUcgoCqfQEgP7I/rYYoibIMVQ3JKnZC1RLbS4cR86tej4J0RPGMz3s1i5+0iS2nOFeJoWcF3+Hsnlq1FYvXHfpvz5Coh79VbfiT8sX3i81d1FKE5Wy8V9NNmqIbvVdkXD8ns5E/xp2+ZGT/eoXqwNSrk4GqlRy8=
Received: from localhost (d.sturek@208.54.5.75 with plain) by smtp110-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 2010 08:53:55 -0800 PST
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-YMail-OSG: FyXEDJcVM1n53PhFYcNT7mV7xmOmuD3HFcFQzdI_L1vEk0i cFOpDtoPhejKJEhGKZpjOFJ4BBC.1qZRq_C.EMF7CdD.0VTLc9XQkl_IwVhd Mwb7SqSEhYSeQJP1ydkTEfvllR2H4cUSQ2zU0KqFkrEko956ZP6RRrFPTwQj kOziE6Ksh1MkFGlDK9mpgnE.uXqmfUOaw6vXIaelIG_RI7UXe2Qg0Fs2POPY 107UsQn5vYgpCyEq9CJ41V5GtT6f3c5r5HthLiAF.TmLccG2sqUuqBkXi.Zq 1n5Gahl2vHNrHS7gVoVJkub9roDAwdrI2qpRtYyNLzbGZQf1x2N0HqdJYfZV J.C4-
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:42:06 -0800
Subject: Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
Message-ID: <dawvppavxgmavxoyk4mlkvpn.1292604126450@email.android.com>
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Cc: 'Brian Haberman' <brian@innovationslab.net>, 'IPv6 WG Mailing List' <ipv6@ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:52:13 -0000
Would you like an abstracted test report to the reflector instead? Don Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: >Thomas, > >On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > >> Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> writes: >> >>> When we advance a routing protocol to Proposed Standard, for reasons >>> related to ancient IESG history related to routing, we generally >>> require a test report that shows interoperable implementations of >>> the standard in question. >> >> And FWIW, I think that requirement expired and has long been OBE. >> >> See RFC 4794 "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete" > >I am the author of RFC1264 and was the Routing AD when it was written. I completely agree with making it Historic. The abstract of RFC4794 says it well: > > RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely > different time in the life of the Internet. It prescribed rules to > protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have > various undesirable properties. In today's Internet, there are so > many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we > believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just > get in the way. > >RFC1264 was useful when it was written in 1991, but the world has changed many ways and it is no longer necessary. > >Bob > > > > >> >> While getting a routing/interoperability report is a fine thing to do, >> it is not and should not be a requirement to advance this (or any) >> draft to PS. >> >> This draft should advance on its own merits (on which I have not >> opinion). >> >> Thomas >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >--------------------------------------------------------------------
- Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Brian Haberman
- RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Fred Baker
- RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Fred Baker
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Thomas Narten
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Fred Baker
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Thomas Narten
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Bob Hinden
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Bob Hinden
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls JP Vasseur