Re: Spring Appeal and [Errata Rejected] RFC8200 (6003)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 15 May 2020 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 A11E63A0C3A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 7yQhXGbcSzbV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (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 7B3F63A0C23 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id bs4so3596831edb.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2LnOx01YS4o4OIHmQkLfjWqFCt1WH3kodn5Cp6PDFQc=; b=YGN3pLPMoRqEl473Bv7E5xxxo3qktGHbaf0+XjlXDLB5ddyKhWkWEnCvp5Ua+ASfce a5zpv2MtxaHV1PQrP5pw+kNiIKhyhfbLYUjrYSuIImspiluuau/NTlkWQMBFAdWh7MOg 0H5M52MO/drz0MsVKCethaHDTo+sM8SzSH9qS0kR7MqjwgnI65B7F0W+91k948W6Gr8H Q7yGA0B4t4YfEEA4v4RI1ZjuGspeETKPykyB3sZ5gz64uOjpdU7KdWaoTW+wSvoK4LoC tbIYY2hyLOui2EoST4Ypnpl1gbCn61dRP9gCDwMScN9LC4yL3rw+tWM7lkLH6oCF3gXY bxBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2LnOx01YS4o4OIHmQkLfjWqFCt1WH3kodn5Cp6PDFQc=; b=atlNdFLxjNjmW5+FCA1W75in6sSk2JdTtKhF14BgGJQlOULqiFLLbu3n59VxO61z+P 4ikGOMi9iZFaETgd3fG464KYVlXAugpJjm441d9SdvEZTjOxExRhvyO5WXJQfpsa5mfD 4Etcp6IlfkKngpOnDogmU929wsqAc4JFq/p+hjP6BwshkxnwJgKGeFz5O85aEcHOPoue u0Lma8PH3fqvAT+NIBfS79KgkPly6dZ+O9jkbyqG07OlcZY3KK/29g+T8s/wAIvMAYk6 LZsQHBRZBBMn4d1sH6QzgfaGbyW5lYQRtGh4NnWDyUtdUOn2hveBzh+mgP/yeJaz1Xe1 WQUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531/zEGSj67BqTyMZ9rocc19HXaGcWnhy4vqG4fWBvwJS0IzK6Vt 5mgWe16xyTEA8uV2UOaElkmKNkvtGY1LmOG/X8BFjfNR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywoEVHm4XIdAkI+H+nP4/VXXXfQF0aR8rywTKK8oUAo4hchpYeKpZGszf2rpUaBQCdZcoiMvjSPGpzflmVxIo=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9eac:: with SMTP id a41mr5258793edf.120.1589585833629; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200510184112.9643EF406D6@rfc-editor.org> <030874d9-28f5-48da-befb-f0a210c51347@si6networks.com> <A1A84435-E0A3-403C-A1CF-CC83F75BCC0B@employees.org> <ffea7f98-b5a8-7afd-727b-eba50087aa32@si6networks.com> <CAMGpriXR55WawsnEnUYfdNUkvmTS34e4QjfSpDoNFZk-=Qabpw@mail.gmail.com> <58642567-BDF2-4243-B2DF-E5F12E38FF89@steffann.nl> <CAOj+MMEj2XGOu-vZ7jQmQyuL4DRhEzz1yd9aHDjeTaiNWTM3Og@mail.gmail.com> <D1E37241-D20B-47C3-B5C1-B04B63F71F85@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <D1E37241-D20B-47C3-B5C1-B04B63F71F85@steffann.nl>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:37:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMH0+R6Corh-UeSYQxYDY2JNspqU2OqZXme1GmnVY2CJtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Spring Appeal and [Errata Rejected] RFC8200 (6003)
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f4423c05a5b84abd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eKh1QNXja-rfA656SJisvtJ0m4k>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 15 May 2020 23:37:20 -0000

Dear Sander,

>  I would appreciate it if you would be a bit less derogatory in your
replies to other working group members.

Let your wish be my command.

The discussions on this list reached levels far beyond real solid technical
debate.

Solid arguments are being ignored (or remain unanswered), voice from
operators and vendors not being taken seriously and proposals without any
merits are being placed in WG adoption status in spite of obvious overlap
with ongoing identical work in other WGs.

Sure this is not the first time in IETF history where ideas turn into RFCs
only to die in the marketplace. Hint: CR-LDP.

With that I decided to unsubscribe from 6man for now. Just do not have time
for this type of IETF WG list.

But what worries me the most is that instead of focusing this WG efforts to
enhance IPv6 to make the deployments easier the WG energy goes to complete
black hole.

It is not a good news for the global Internet infrastructure our
lives truly depend on.

Kind regards,
Robert.



On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 12:59 AM Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> > > It mentions _the_ node identified in the DA, singular.
> >
> > Lol ...
> >
> > How can DA contain more then one destination node address (other then
> multicast) in the view of RFC8200 ?
> >
> > Unbelievable what is happening on this WG list.
>
> I would appreciate it if you would be a bit less derogatory in your
> replies to other working group members.
> Sander
>
>