IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 09 December 2014 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 682F61A86F0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 uqskWYiOYVTS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D751A1BA0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89694880F5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462881368251 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54870E28.3010502@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:58:48 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01
References: <CC2EE99E-475C-4DB5-9E7F-ED00B4D48561@employees.org> <86F24DAC-C017-4D09-9431-0C33134B55C2@employees.org> <5486B2E1.4050507@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <5486B2E1.4050507@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PWqnqlrt7Ni8AHUQU2fLog74v6ghHoT28"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/paHbx9kJORndcrWbWQsKxxTPytQ
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, 09 Dec 2014 14:58:49 -0000

Fernando,

On 12/9/14 3:29 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
> * Requiring that the IP ID be unpredictable

Let's suppose that the WG decides to publish this document and makes the
above a MUST.

When the WG decides to advance this PS RFC to IS, how do we determine if
this critical component is implemented and interoperable?

Regards,
Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email