IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 06 March 2017 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 222D712996E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:05:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 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_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 vodfS2I0-4mt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:05:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 195E3129886 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631449E2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UJMhBURzqGFi for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:05:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f198.google.com (mail-ua0-f198.google.com [209.85.217.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3400B9B0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:05:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f198.google.com with SMTP id q7so84815999uaf.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:05:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wGhpYkR2aL3gqlTpcWeluY62M/d9r5obsml4hLdVGg4=; b=aWMLhYRA5RVsGHnBdaTjqbctbUA7gs+VeOgAGUxNjjnI6+fxXGULM6LQybK0bXvxX0 CCsyO/7q7j66EgXiI6TxZPNSvOvzsN9SM+BqhHVkt9d7KHc05gqd0ltor9/oKM6fQeaD CGS2npKoAJKcOGno/eMq8vIXwmw8KBzUDd3gwlIDiC+V64YqU/UFLPRdIZUhpodGPaE3 hqCNBUAh6qfNKP5821O7s0PVFui79XckalNxBG9RM43UyJB0sKzqwAX4msPqC0UDQ4qg NmgW7j4y08pXnVV6HYQSSDyP7HQBP/EzYVvRurklv6BZrlzyYphyRYbEaqwxZCag3Ali stgQ==
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=wGhpYkR2aL3gqlTpcWeluY62M/d9r5obsml4hLdVGg4=; b=ZY5Vu0ZijL+PRm6JyRlNqhelkaExKVtmEwepid7swCOqavQHKnkpnMRN0HN2mYmR8q 7e9VvTxkwnWiiAKP6Jg0Se+PLYBO4/jVUT/L/2TJ8VdnYjhbjnrNWi++PDGH5I3QW5kf Jj4pRaLvH5kx3LNW2I7pC+C8uLRO83PCL4y7Fi7B60JDcVk2Sniwa8f7tgNvVjIVbnQG PtbVhpiMw6YwZxV2z/5k6xSOu3S2Qs66Wf/gLBIv+aGr7Sm1j+BFCL6DRnTUc5OJstP5 OuphlyX03QCEwBAR8A+Rq3aRCrmdhyo9qJir8uxMTFAYPcCqvYpzyZBdGiVlmA/sZGw0 Fo2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mZYomi1oZsjswchEcbG3UhPD/0/mZvsl7j+20N6adoMjeC7f0WddQ41zc8LvPWRA1YlOLXdPRNg/tMhzJCJR0ncuD3w2b6+zBt6eGDnSO4R3qq+PU3dpMbaV01QmyCRIHP67ZaftgAVGU=
X-Received: by 10.176.80.66 with SMTP id z2mr2500924uaz.151.1488827146477; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:05:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.176.80.66 with SMTP id z2mr2500917uaz.151.1488827146301; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:05:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.134.129 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:05:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau3BOVo3UhyGEdxKR-YgqpLqJVxV7uswCCXFsaQoKRaKHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:05:45 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau2AEVAo1TCWDLTOzibRBtTtXoWdL2a0ishm_pQ3T4bWAw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c192330300398054a14950a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jdViZHwb73JMIdbSmOUX4LHjhN8>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@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: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:05:49 -0000

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> Wow. That's a lot of for what started off as a reclassification. I don't
> think it's a good idea to attempt to wordsmith RFC4291 hoping that one of
> the formulations we end up with will somehow reach consensus.
>

There seems to be a fairly strong consensus that RFC4291bis shouldn't go
forward without additional wordsmithing. But that is obviously the IESGs
call.


> Instead, I would suggest another approach: see what the problems with 4291
> are, *write them down*, and only then write a document explaining what
> should be changed and why.
>

The list of 7 points are the problems that many see with 4291bis, maybe
overly summarized, but they are there.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email