Re: Results on 6MAN Header Insertion Survey
Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 09 November 2016 20:55 UTC
Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 6B5AA1294DC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:55:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.774
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_GREY=0.424] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ncjDM2UwYWUH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81C64129892 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x186so186587083vkd.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:55:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kkp9ocBjd2Fm+U+8Du/G7fQq/LpjrP99pG0TFBGFqvA=; b=qvFTD7mkr4YAk9BF0rzgUoF1ndyfLzqxnpo9spMh7BUKUhWfcsB/bgkcgwOGZFrhRR ERh0R8NBZSqO/JS58jqbTRrUDinoJcEzS1Bao1TOcqQv3m1snA8V/L0ykwMWGCAqKL09 q1ZgBAnxXcLdzvwfRN7uXwlMMeVxN00N+zAjLYgCYyQufqIhnMuJAhpQCtxCdspGljgN okeLZGHh6oNGaR+juDOR/D3In2PpTy0b+b+/OtHJ5W/eFl2EG96t7Lkh0Sp4+sPT8tg6 4zOQ772mp9t7n/OwPKidub/CkfMPvQAmJEFMAnyAmLMf/LkecvDi5qUed6Vd+Ay36n58 tpbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kkp9ocBjd2Fm+U+8Du/G7fQq/LpjrP99pG0TFBGFqvA=; b=Ofthyf3K0/PVLbJ8e+4QEUaYJRHsoFRKUGrLdxLIllJpVeKMcTw7tHMBrDxhD/qynb WVx1ivipQ+PbbjNfamqBP4ocjznFRcQzepYv030MOJBhSuylwwKgdCdGT82ScDWRLdTL E0EykVABWIINq8B5yFMSOZQy7mUHUsYSbcDVGEpiViov+EqpImkNou9HJV5RsNoFn45Z Vo8Tco5qcNSrake5tW3JgfNVUnPAiQJAIBjGWQt0Xy+dpQdhDMruukPdGPrEBkWU9LXb 7/NZ0FKijj4C6ihnag3Kar1VZH9DO80lBEp4iWXJYjwysm48+7GuCPBx/0LmCguj0Ksh vrWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdfjYblw7IED2CMfTkTZZo/2bIvp1DiSsc0LZNsKMCdN4j+JFUdxfltP3lz6+XGMzSZ2WS39Ah/515ovA==
X-Received: by 10.31.203.3 with SMTP id b3mr1113816vkg.131.1478724923672; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:55:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.48.212 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:55:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.159.48.212 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:55:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yhPuzXRXMfWjTy-sS4dgJwoMYRVZLhpYQFsciT-Ksf_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7C730020-8A43-40F4-8DCD-A97774C58C33@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yhPuzXRXMfWjTy-sS4dgJwoMYRVZLhpYQFsciT-Ksf_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:55:22 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zGK_UKr7r1UpErNw=n2168e1YLhc7fsk=vp_io3s3m6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Results on 6MAN Header Insertion Survey
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114dc978cbcce80540e47963"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cA3uoV3ckYLJdi1R16YPm7TzeDA>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@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: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:55:26 -0000
(Apologies for not deleting most of below, I'm on my phone.) Regarding a draft about the issues that would be caused by EH insertion, I've been thinking about one for a few weeks and have been putting together some notes. I'm happy to take it further if there is enough interest and would welcome any interested co-authors. Regards, Mark. On 9 Nov. 2016 09:01, "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, The poll is now closed. We received 57 responses. You can see the results at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-MP3RRBYN/ The chairs conclusions are as follows. There was not a clear highest priority results between the three choices. The numbers were A) Ban Header Insertion 17 B) Describe the Problem 17 C) Not say anything 23 This is consistent with the email and face to face discussions. Medium Priority showed a clearer difference: A) Ban Header Insertion 11 B) Describe the Problem 36 C) Not say anything 6 The chairs conclude that there is much stronger support to describe the problem than the other two choices. Specifically if the we combine the high and medium choices: A) Ban Header Insertion 28 B) Describe the Problem 53 C) Not say anything 29 We note that of the 57 people who participated in the poll, 53 gave “Describing the Problem” high or medium preference. With our ADs assistance, we also ran a Condorcet calculator on the survey data. This also confirmed the B) choice as the result of the poll. More info on Condorcet is at the end of this email. Consequently, the chairs declare there is a consensus to include the text that describe the problems with Header Insertion in rfc2460bis. We will send the proposed text used in the survey out in a separate email. It is open for improvement as long as it keeps it within the consensus in the w.g. That is, that it only describes the problems with header insertion. The goal will be to publish a new draft when the ID repository reopens. We also think there would be value in a few people writing a new draft that describes the issues with Header Insertion in greater detail than can be accommodated in rfc2460bis. This would not be part of moving the core IPv6 specs to Internet Standard. Bob & Ole -------- The following link has more info on Condorcet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method We used the calculator at: http://ericgorr.net/condorcet/ The raw data from the poll: A>B>C B>A>C B>A>C B>C>A A>B>C A>B>C A>B>C C>B>A A>B>C C>B>A C>B>A C>B>A C>B>A A>B>C A>B>C C>B>A B>A>C A>B>C C>B>A C>B>A C>B>A B>A>C B>A>C C>B>A C>B>A C A>B>C B>C>A A>B>C C>B>A C>B>A A>B A>B>C C>B>A C>B>A C>B>A C>B>A C>B>A B>A>C B>A>C B>C>A A>B>C B>C>A B>C C>B>A A>B>C B>A>C B>A>C B C>B>A B>C>A A>B C>B>A C>B>A A>B>C A>B>C B>A>C -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Results on 6MAN Header Insertion Survey Bob Hinden
- Re: Results on 6MAN Header Insertion Survey Mark Smith