A proposal for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 26 November 2013 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D525F1AE0A2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:05:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9z6fh4qADvcW for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE2A1AE0D1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 86-135-17-190.fibertel.com.ar ([190.17.135.86] helo=[192.168.1.118]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1Vl69A-0000Pa-1V; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 01:05:00 +0100
Message-ID: <5293E58A.4090001@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:04:26 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: A proposal for draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "<draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Nov 2013 00:05:07 -0000

Folks,

My understanding is that, as noted a number of times already, the
discussion of "SHOULD NOT" vs "MUST NOT" is orthogonal to the wg call
for adoption of this document (but I can be corrected if wrong).

That said, since a number of folks have reiterated a desire to change
the "MUST NOT" to "SHOULD NOT", I propose to apply such change before
the first draft-ietf version is submitted, and have the discussion of
"SHOULD NOT vs MUST NOT" afterwards -- after all, no matter what the
initial version is, the end result is whatever we have wg consensus for
(so either option is not casted into stone).

Thanks!

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