IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4941bis implementations

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 80FF03A19A9; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ohSzSv2XPT9Y; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C06B3A19A8; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C637893AD; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 22:56:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: RFC4941bis implementations
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <7d65f86a-7a82-6139-b455-a27046496c52@si6networks.com> <F195E17C-4F5B-47E3-9BA4-FAD966C997F1@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <3255dcf9-be71-bd68-fb6c-9b6bc0f99a58@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:45:21 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F195E17C-4F5B-47E3-9BA4-FAD966C997F1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nb1sSZdU9RHwTuT0q0S1czIlxaM>
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: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 20:56:43 -0000

Hello, Suresh,

[....]
>>
>> FWIW, I produce a patch for Linux kernel (net-next) that implements rfc4941bis: https://www.gont.com.ar/code/fgont-patch-linux-net-next-rfc4941bis.txt (up & running here).
>>
>> I've submitted it to the netdev list already.
>>
>> And should have a patch for the FreeBSD kernel today.
>>
>> Not sure if this might be useful for a "disposable" (to be removed by the RFC-Ed section), but I guess might be of use for the shepherd's writeup?
> 
> I think you can add an Implementation Status section into the draft as described in RFC7942. It serves as documentation of the existing implementations when the draft goes through IETF Last Call as well as IESG Evaluation. It will be removed before the draft is published as an RFC. I have found these sections helpful and informative when I was on the IESG.

Thanks a lot for your input! Will do that, unless the chairs suggest 
otherwise.

Thanks!

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email