IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt

Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> Thu, 12 January 2012 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cgrundemann@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 EB3C511E8088 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:24:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k4r6od0hVQWG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E97F11E8083 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dajz8 with SMTP id z8so1749403daj.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:24:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vZc6hkDUhJ/U+ETHSk9HMKmZehjLWiOupFjld4/VySQ=; b=chh6clhgsgS6EoEAsAB+jMj/bNWEec9LzemcoqSCnRqFvWZ0zIChWUfSkCc992OIzN anZgVVew5aRhtEAYn7Y3lfym9OMQLfm/o/jBAT0vh7BAO+rHos09aNxhtv3gtoNsinwT Gj2F30jby/CP4ywREG3WpFdZKAZJw+cELemkY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.117.7 with SMTP id ka7mr11050644pbb.21.1326399889915; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.143.82.18 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:24:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|bd681ced736eee0700e443f9acc256d8nBFAnB03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|0D0150C3-9E05-4839-ACF1-0E7196420D2F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <4EB3F3D6.4090302@innovationslab.net> <CAC1-dtnas++ahkBmpdyq7DbyAEg0W6bZY16qGzKmsP10vC39FQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA3D20.7020603@innovationslab.net> <CAKFn1SFvs0PzBXtEWWo814Oe5TJmbQEJBm5FeYJY5xzrr=KFSw@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA5793.8080800@gmail.com> <CAKFn1SHA-=cQ_=5rJVLVMvQYXoTL_D1dCR=uWZK-qFrcGp6P-w@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA7AF8.2090508@gmail.com> <0D0150C3-9E05-4839-ACF1-0E7196420D2F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAKFn1SFp_r7EJ6CpM8EF2zkcJz1z34CdEcRt2i5xcsrWkCBQwQ@mail.gmail.com> <EMEW3|bd681ced736eee0700e443f9acc256d8nBFAnB03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|0D0150C3-9E05-4839-ACF1-0E7196420D2F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:24:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAC1-dtnt+NKnqJaj-osfxwDf=uLpfv62hBBGDzftGL8KA6jdEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 6man Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:24:51 -0000

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:49, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Well, there are two questions here.
>
> One is whether the WG believes the update as described in draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05 is correct and complete.  I have not seen (yet) any significant technical concerns raised.  The last of those were discussed and (we believe) resolved in Quebec.  Are there any more?

It appears that there is general agreement here, with possibly a few
technical/content nits that probably need to be sorted in a final
revision, raised by Dave and documented in message:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14984.html

> The other is whether the WG believes we should publish an update, or a complete fresh version of RFC3484.  This was discussed previously in the WG and the update path preferred.  If a fresh version is now deemed more appropriate, I am fine to work on that with the other authors if required.

My understanding is that there is also general agreement here; that
this should be published as an update (after being re-organized a bit)
now, and then followed up with a replace (bis) I-D. As I have
previously stated; the changes in this update are needed and are
time-sensitive, the sooner this update can become an RFC the better.

> We just need a decision so we can progress this - it's been so close to release for a long time.  Many of the changes in the update have been implemented in a number of platforms already.

Agreed, let's get this done! =)

Cheers,
~Chris

PS - I don't want to step on any toes here, but I'd be happy to take a
stab at a revision based on the current feedback if the authors would
like, I could probably get it done by the end of next week, possibly
sooner.

> Tim

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email