IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 18 October 2018 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 970E0130DD4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 s32-WgP0YSNW for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F358130DD3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71C19FECC112; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:09:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B12B777292; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:09:38 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+7+m8jctSmON5HFBn8P9DG1Ldoh=fjs-3cb2ukYiy1B+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:09:37 +0200
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A9CE6A8-7905-4DA7-9D36-24C1FA78579B@employees.org>
References: <153973137181.9473.10666616544238076833@ietfa.amsl.com> <092346e1-6350-e54e-e711-9c5ee6dc4e6b@gmail.com> <4a883ed6-c0d7-5d3f-9657-3ba0476919e0@foobar.org> <6952EE88-B3D6-48BC-ACFF-C5248965EDC9@employees.org> <CAPDSy+7+m8jctSmON5HFBn8P9DG1Ldoh=fjs-3cb2ukYiy1B+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pXdbk4tLE053Kq5nDqOqj5mMVRQ>
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, 18 Oct 2018 19:09:42 -0000

Hi David,

> I am still opposed to advancing draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag to Proposed Standard.
> 
> -03 does not address my concerns, it adds notes acknowledging my points, but the notes do not solve the underlying issues I raised. IPv6 RAs are not necessarily the right place to solve the issue described, and I have yet to hear client host manufacturers indicate they are interested in this work. Is there even running code of this proposal? I think making this a standard would be premature at this point.

Do I understand you correctly that your objections are not with the proposed protocol mechanism in the draft? I.e. the technical part, but you believe that doing this with an RA is the wrong solution.
Do I understand you correctly that there is no text in the draft that could resolve this, as you are principally against an RA based solution?
It would be great if you could expand on your reasoning for the objection, because I’m not sure I have understood it.

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email