IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Tue, 23 October 2018 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@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 537C9130E1B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 faHoV51Ay8NG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc36.google.com (mail-yw1-xc36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c36]) (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 D3B64130DD1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc36.google.com with SMTP id d126-v6so1215769ywa.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=kVxz+MjvtsNO83chzVS1lP1hpq3k1dPswUFCW+hNSoQ=; b=YT8jiIR0liJROUJcJ9Y0hxcwYnfMwoIDe1c4+EvCmiRyzbfU12N5UdSlAJiF5bj7fa 4s2qDB7VrPPhb//hR5/t5k1rNWAoyRogVRCZGhPvWmK4phiS16y3fYdSWXQMKNqL6JIg cD9fydN1rEgHA9/92hISL95ghcRtynx+e0v+70lvZ4RSa127fwt78fIck6+ubllY2bQJ vY0erczbkrgceNF35EqzvVW32d4jF+kD/0nWi8FK+/pfuwExeQpNBYP5eyev8yZ77jZr +R81T2qS6wwQwQvY7dOKPPvE6u+MSbc2VWwkYKH6pMveOgdEzRLSz4YedPDDMum3jY4O gKcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=kVxz+MjvtsNO83chzVS1lP1hpq3k1dPswUFCW+hNSoQ=; b=In+3XekDTPm4cXVEDMh0GVKn39O8MbuePEqN18eT8NvibEd37u52/YDpWBNpDk9YmO fZ/n5vMvGwHdIFYltIk30C2ntdW5oLdTD0WL370nRjYjwY0yC7FcivJcq031KIvwlgxw QRrOuFeQtGzgL3E1GNRb5rPhVLA58p9BoR+7+YvZX6Iw518b0DzZcXUcDih8v2i3ls6t FwHgpRRVJZTa7ab3n/cUdTWYB/aIVtUwP9wTpUZVXao4CPWg11IPr3nwA17juXDuTzBx 9GZPdCKimLQpHN4q+5iUOC2vProgRutT5AkHAyhgoW7de2GinmYDgoo7EVf/WR7GeagW 9a3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLShfTt0PqpZsTWTp/wVw/aZizOPaRYqHLSrNxFOSQ+xzFqV66R CKb/wuHf3YCbTi0YQ9SLoQY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fNU1t4yxOl4K8PoGK62ePTYR3jRHn05ZCbc8cGEau1IfIM0cmnI/mMlAy3ceibCRM1Dw0Lcg==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:9141:: with SMTP id i62-v6mr14989ywg.371.1540331778912; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.18] (45-19-110-76.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net. [45.19.110.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r5-v6sm1713760ywr.80.2018.10.23.14.56.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B4C11841-B13D-468C-8DB0-969E96A55E99@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BACE6177-59CA-4FD5-8CE5-E310E0FDC5D4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:56:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2D3E4EDA-ADD0-4901-82C6-B686163B123B@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <CAFU7BASO_ByzbanhLKnWV280O_fASd-8W+ujpj3sN6d2-whw2w@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-u7aAPwAOcixYvt2On=-o_8X25GhqdXTfA+tWRC1o2XA@mail.gmail.com> <3beca72e-19c5-10af-02e5-c21a90d77100@gmail.com> <20181019.223739.271916573.sthaug@nethelp.no> <4f58643c-272e-507e-3282-c87befd42395@gmail.com> <0927741c-4e8e-fcf7-ddd6-3ba500ba4c3d@si6networks.com> <7B48A11D-31DE-443C-B73A-14642EA0A397@jisc.ac.uk> <61d2e234-b4c2-deb5-99bb-1d45df187b93@gmail.com> <2D3E4EDA-ADD0-4901-82C6-B686163B123B@jisc.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/m0soq5NDsXN3pwD-IhDlhCVe-1c>
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, 23 Oct 2018 21:56:22 -0000


> On Oct 23, 2018, at 5:26 PM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Oct 2018, at 20:43, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Tim,
>> On 2018-10-23 23:44, Tim Chown wrote:
>>>> On 23 Oct 2018, at 00:01, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/20/18 3:42 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-10-20 09:37, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>>>>>>> Job,
>>>>>>> On 2018-10-20 01:35, Job Snijders wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think it would be good to have some running code before advancing this to
>>>>>>>> IESG review and RFC publication. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why is this proposal special in that respect? This is not an IETF requirement
>>>>>>> and despite the BCP advocating an Implementation Status section, very few drafts
>>>>>>> do this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note, I am all for some trial implementations, but why does *this* draft
>>>>>>> need one when so many others don't?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Whatever happened to "We believe in rough consensus and running code"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It hasn't gone away, although formally it only applies for promotion
>>>>> above "Proposed Standard" status. And I believe in it, and that's why
>>>>> there's running code for GRASP (draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15). But for
>>>>> something that has to go into the basic IP stack, it's not so easy to
>>>>> prototype, and I am still not seeing why people would raise the barrier
>>>>> for this particular minor extension rather than, say, for the extension
>>>>> mechanism for RA flags that appears to be completely unimplemented.
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>> 
>>> I think the problem is that we don't even have "rough consensus" here, yet alone "running code".
>> 
>> I think it's a bit worse than not having rough consensus. We have people
>> saying "this is useful, somebody should code it up" and others saying
>> "this is potentially harmful and a waste of effort."
> 
> Feel free to rename it draft-ietf-6man-marmite-flag ;)

or probably draft-ietf-6man-vegemite-flag ;-) since Brian is in NZ.

Cheers
Suresh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email