Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 9CCB4129B70 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=google.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 Kmow8jYNYO_O for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (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 533E1129B00 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p77so13094495ywg.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:49:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=E4X8Qi+YA7l3FkEWZ6S7W5L5B4MPYADaRJtLcuiKxAw=; b=XBbbCMpu6dMdH0vxpyRsvGbNHpymwbWxMf+QQKyq1zGabP7ph8QNvuchfjgFK3NP94 W9VZNScUqSYF0ec0B/wFgcsyTtGXDYcsKNZCKDIN9eqPU17PB7BjrSOARmg3fT9MT45Y 3/6c8FKiZsY+LWk8jqKfRHRDuipc4GnuW37fbCTcBZDCDMg6Xx7zrH2s13kI7M7Y+rRw 0FCOjL5nazDfGwjoNd2gDN0bwsBwbeN2c6vTP7CHmUIze2fh+HO4QEzMdJ6NWNOBp6JH UAermn7gNM4pnW5WoqVDvbk5bey6MjjwwaWuMKYwKeYV3vX4xfG3pxM3WqJWEpK4Cp8m p5CQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E4X8Qi+YA7l3FkEWZ6S7W5L5B4MPYADaRJtLcuiKxAw=; b=iWEJF7P9uYvvtDkqumEVYSdFtKHvhPv98iKZyxGYb+8YFHFGTz89dEhvVf0waVZhF1 ZRjXTcPjvuOxmtBIVlJlyGo3hfBRr+oc8g2jz43Z41vDMC4KUYwZ26SLdM1qjyMJIyDj KohBAZkGAx4+EWAk7iJaDd75mlebOzA6LFVI7IN24Hk12lLE+gzpnM0kIHVrNyVofYO2 yIm8aj4IalZBkERLOY391OcQG5EHWkNdG6SsBbFhNcHqTG7AFNnhGdA/jaiY+FQpf7qo nv7t6hXGUpM+93O0vZRlVxL09ro1q4WRpDruelvAixjVx1LqPf5L8wCiET+zEKKMaEEw vyZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nRjLXLjHnw9lg9OY/huEGodWXIAiO64jguXOvQQ/Jr7RFVeQv1T939T/zm243FHYcr7CIFcTtyS5r8Az2z
X-Received: by 10.129.129.3 with SMTP id r3mr27268234ywf.0.1487836163247; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:49:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.207.4 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:49:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <30dda6a9-2683-8157-1b75-9aa154b8deb7@si6networks.com>
References: <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <068ce975-8b1e-a7c5-abba-2bfc1d904d70@gmail.com> <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark> <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net> <7960ff2d-359f-429c-6e82-ef592f90bf53@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1W+AVt4Dixo9epB5VazxBsVMD+mrshwaE=n7SuX6eGDw@mail.gmail.com> <m2a89dveop.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1igJiL_2BVi=RL_Wkd6V0O6WaPJ5fMS+ggVkTRAOdPXw@mail.gmail.com> <3f6b3814-34ee-e8e4-3746-85b3e7e208d8@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0LHCT9_3QzaDY=XKWwSsA5CtE-4EqaQsp_Fp_3-Y56GA@mail.gmail.com> <30dda6a9-2683-8157-1b75-9aa154b8deb7@si6networks.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:49:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxpQ9hoQF4s1CH-3VbsSibOeuocaPsrk0_iZE=1ji9+jUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="94eb2c07dd3e058e4505492ddaff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jYV2C3b8KjzRfTlRM0ScetCBdag>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:49:27 -0000

On 23 February 2017 at 16:33, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> On 02/23/2017 03:24 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
> > <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     > (I do also happen to think that it would be better if we waited a
> decade
> >     > before changing this, because we're only 5 or so years into
> large-scale
> >     > deployment that will hopefully last at least 3 or 4 decades.
> However, I
> >     > don't expect many people to agree with me on that, so I'm not
> trying to
> >     > make that argument here.)
> >
> >     Isn't that actually an argument for waiting before moving rfc4291bis
> to
> >     full standard?
> >
> >     If you'd wait to change it, why would you want to cast this into
> stone
> >     now? So that, later you can argue that "it's a full standard
> document...
> >     so we shouldn't change it"?
> >
> >
> > I don't see why that argument would carry any weight. Full standards can
> > be changed and updated, too.
> >
> > What I most care about is that if we make fundamental changes like this,
> > then it's not done as part of a reclassification, and the working group
> > has its say.
> >
> > Whether the document says "full standard" or "draft standard" is not as
> > important as whether it says the right thing.
>
> Exactly. And if a document does not reflect operational reality, it has
> a big problem.
>
> My understanding is that Randy et al are trying to get rfc4291bis to
> reflect operational reality, but you want to progress the document with
> no changes, essentially meaning that you want to publish a document as
> full standard which doesn't agree with how the protocol is being deployed.
>
> If, even at the time of publication our documents already do not reflect
> reality, we are not going to be taken seriously.
>
> If you're argument is that we cannot do what is right because moving
> rfc4291 to full standard doesn't allow it, then you're implicitly asking
> not to move rfc4291bis to full standard (or are just aasking us to do
> the wrong thing).
>

Actually, I was saying that I don't see that there's a real problem with
the current text.