IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 30 April 2019 04:20 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 9C6581200C5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=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 FJOm_kSyJIXm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 F067B1200B2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id l18so6216480pgj.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h5SohSBY5e0DV07gvCMUUKMMMF3THr02GnOV4CFb8Jk=; b=UYfr/qPDVJA39kxAscQfe70LCtB855lFpCxWMxsp95c766o4XoqiQLTIUEaQvmftSm NlmiLCnsBP+n3rlDqpbOwWca5VPTW5utvklUH7r1ca0JwucNF+bYQeZsjddWmAhibeRt WZARS0jexhytrVUblhYMX9NOGwwWHfN81uMZPer/BqVnIolCrfiwZfHZFcovMVbzVu72 5spGDA1TjL1ctm93C1g8s221yLxc+MbxQAOxLtVtAHab3BNSE94rgvodqXQb/cG0ehcW thzoKtWs4107U//BqRgDghRDmMYn2KtviYiIsra1vt5R5hMHUwV6yxjz7xRI/L+DVLOH pJSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h5SohSBY5e0DV07gvCMUUKMMMF3THr02GnOV4CFb8Jk=; b=r4PSUdKBtGTb9exfkT2NpZK4unbQbBLLTHZDzgEBf9pE8TbrvC7ICAbbbylxMdNG0x UxjcPg9mR+10KZisCNJl0Tp725+VVU/97genrxYCu19+2FcbkQQKTmVWysbaoeXoEanW H9wuS1tMuaveDDcsWr5j0qbF4nPBX+G7kGGuc1Ps6lzK/VHE3yrbPWCOG3m90BXTT1FW 9mhvZ4RLYglYF5eYlWKAG5eCnh8kL935ohLtiMKK8jFiSaL3XSS4a9zFE/64DaW1Vclj kLIFRup2GQQ4HxV/rU+i6KkCGNqbTUwwcTihgm+unBGMV/WqsB2qXJgU2Hx4uSfLyXQQ XshQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWZLXywialaGd69QAmIgOdv/ZjXR1th+vNoQ0LzMQynoJdzGxVV HTfJrrsbDVNUI/hmeH9zJvNeD3df
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3BbRcpTgL17IGtBjEYxkcUy0R5Hikhle59bhOlmxU1S0lMsQ4icBLL9EueUHClt5KIGavjw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:d252:: with SMTP id t18mr14900058pgi.131.1556598023262; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h20sm91159216pfj.40.2019.04.29.21.20.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <725B8F3A-D201-4A47-9E78-EF3A06B02C6C@steffann.nl>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <652a6c20-057b-3178-9a2c-27c966a2f920@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:20:21 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <725B8F3A-D201-4A47-9E78-EF3A06B02C6C@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jCo8cVUG_cgjOSWRpGxGYSPxGao>
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 04:20:27 -0000

Sander,

I agree that we should take notice of operators' opinions. But a live video recording is not the best way to convey them. I also agree that every added feature comes with an operational cost, as well as the intended benefit. However, general arguments like this are not actionable.

Whatever Nick says, we have done our best to update the draft in response to every objection that has been raised. He's entitled not to agree with our updates, of course. But absent new actionable comments, there's nothing the authors can do at this point.

I agree that having a neutral party help Ole evaluate the consensus would be good.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 30-Apr-19 09:25, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi Ole,
> 
>> At the 6man meeting at IETF 104 in Prague there was support to close the working group last call and advance
>> draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05 to the IESG.
>>
>> This call is to confirm that decision on the mailing list.
>>
>> Please give objections and comments to this decision to the mailing list, by 2019-05-13.
> 
> Philip posted the link to the archive of the RIPE meeting. Those objections still stand.
> 
> And on behalf of myself as an operator: I see very little advantage to this draft, and many operational problems having to deal with it. As I have stated previously adding complexity to a protocol should be done very carefully. Every flag or option that we introduce carries a cost. In implementation of course, but also in training, brain capacity, extra debugging time needed to check/verify/rule out/etc whether that flag/option is present or not, whether it is handled correctly or not etc etc etc.
> 
> A quote that we should keep in mind, as this is something that I feel we have failed at with IPv6: "Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away"
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email