Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 9696312A140; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:21:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 c_HuGThlsYpp; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:21:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E44ED12A145; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.83] (unknown [181.165.116.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EB5E80F12; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:20:55 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
References: <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark> <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net> <CAKD1Yr2n=ogFo7LJYgjcraoFxioQQzmo8HYxzNRJ10VA8xMVOg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222153129.GE89584@hanna.meerval.net> <m2poiaug54.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr04AKpvp81KdSb9zoMfr0ZdNLq8a+Wgk-3KqSYfP=Qn7g@mail.gmail.com> <m2efypvi6o.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr0bUTT+NSjO=9GFeDU1UnsFjxneS5kqQw2U5UgQp7RnSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <548c1e17-3d95-2267-6d68-7486af19fe9b@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:20:43 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0bUTT+NSjO=9GFeDU1UnsFjxneS5kqQw2U5UgQp7RnSg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aU3X12TYwhNWtO3frWQZ1HCKB2o>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
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, 23 Feb 2017 08:21:06 -0000

On 02/22/2017 10:50 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>     > With the difference that the standards clearly specify what the current
>     > state of affairs is.
> 
>     and now we need to make the wannabe document match what the state of
>     affairs is in networking.
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean "we've been violating the standards, so now the
> standards have to change to match what we've been doing, even if other
> parties are depending on the standards", does it? :-)

Oh, well... you said this exact words at the 6man wg meeting in Seoul,
when you were suggesting that we should allow EH insertion because some
folks had implemented and deployed code that was violating RFC2460.

Looks like you like to bend the rules depending on what you want to push
forward.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492