IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 11 July 2017 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 ADD1613146D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5rcTv130l1uD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5881316E4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.179.10.44] (77.16.42.44.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.42.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05A842D4FF7; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:22:07 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14G57)
In-Reply-To: <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:22:02 +0200
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8BB052D8-221B-4BEC-B556-A06A63454807@employees.org>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aEQeiVa7ga6QMok00AKXfbXaYco>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:22:10 -0000

Brian,

> On 11 Jul 2017, at 01:10, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Neither of our WG Chairs is neutral on this issue; one is the
> document editor, the other has a clear opinion, to which he is
> completely entitled. Personally, I think the AD could step
> in to judge consensus.

What is my opinion? Could you please summarize?
It might be clearer to you than me. :-)

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email