IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-01

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 04 January 2017 04:57 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 392E5129536; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:57:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 cfILVOFbFMJU; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:57:35 -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 8789C12952E; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:57:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.88] (142-135-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.135.142]) (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 3B249838DB; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 05:57:26 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-01
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Russ White <russ@riw.us>
References: <CACL8_9EaZ-JM-MSwzUZijAZqu12dAfA+rtHoraKcn9U3Bt7JAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xYRjWirdAdN2+-THR2d-wmama1j-HF8ANCCgZ4-zozvA@mail.gmail.com> <F38BC011-B0C0-4539-B5CC-17458EAA6989@gmail.com> <027a01d262e7$f30b30d0$d9219270$@riw.us> <9A4806E3-70B8-46E7-921D-4BA0817B16C7@gmail.com> <88D7C907-1BD2-40E7-9DEA-5BAF42688046@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <245a034f-1e15-2556-c39e-f950bea5263f@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 03:07:38 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <88D7C907-1BD2-40E7-9DEA-5BAF42688046@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/icjpM6OjKqx6f3LjqgwrJEWBCNQ>
Cc: Mohammad Moghaddas <mohammad@moghaddas.com>, draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs@tools.ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@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, 04 Jan 2017 04:57:37 -0000

On 01/01/2017 10:26 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Russ White <russ@riw.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> It is indeed an individual draft, and to my knowledge no given
>>>> working
>>> group
>>>> has been asked for opinions. That said, we welcome any and all
>>>> review. Specifically, I have copied v6ops and 6man on this
>>>> note.
>>> 
>>> We would like to present it to a WG as a work item--which WG
>>> would be best for this one? There are some sections that need to
>>> be filled before we present it, I think.
>>> 
>>> :-)
>>> 
>>> Russ
>> 
>> Personaly opinion: this isn’t about IPv6 per se, it is about the
>> operation of an IPv6 network. I’d suggest v6ops.
> 
> Note that I’m not precluding 6man input. I’m asking what change or
> clarification in IPv6 implementations (e.g., IPv6 Maintenance) is
> called for. I don’t think there are any. I think it comments on how
> IPv6 is used operationally, and by extension, what an operator might
> expect to find in IPv6 implementations he deploys.

I somewhat agree, but: wasn't the Node Requirements RFC produced by
6man? -- this one should be similar in nature...


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email