IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 29 April 2019 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 BD7CB120653 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 K6VYoovfK3pv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BDB6120195 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC68D4B; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:25:28 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1556573126; bh=vVSoBQ2DQuFrPXWhiIi ONt4eXq4iA8503ZOajTWl6IQ=; b=cP6JzmwABWoIL093txq/T6gJq52fh7i81Bt i6GtBLHcWifTpThnDep2sgIszvKozJ5tLNWmP9zuQuTJjluHjLoZuJvyWECf+Z96 xrMMouuqxfnpTbKAb2TorOVwbqPwUFEAAwhvBQMiEck/qG6iP0vaqzCEARvpU6r1 FlYba7Kg=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id usx7LDP1-cEy; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:25:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:1000:41d:f0e3:ab06] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:1000:41d:f0e3:ab06]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DC1A4A; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:25:26 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <725B8F3A-D201-4A47-9E78-EF3A06B02C6C@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A33AA247-3B24-4CF3-8537-6297CA38CB88"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:25:25 +0200
In-Reply-To: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/q4ZrbtvZXW2mjMxBdqSDKZez90g>
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:25:34 -0000

Hi Ole,

> At the 6man meeting at IETF 104 in Prague there was support to close the working group last call and advance
> draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05 to the IESG.
> 
> This call is to confirm that decision on the mailing list.
> 
> Please give objections and comments to this decision to the mailing list, by 2019-05-13.

Philip posted the link to the archive of the RIPE meeting. Those objections still stand.

And on behalf of myself as an operator: I see very little advantage to this draft, and many operational problems having to deal with it. As I have stated previously adding complexity to a protocol should be done very carefully. Every flag or option that we introduce carries a cost. In implementation of course, but also in training, brain capacity, extra debugging time needed to check/verify/rule out/etc whether that flag/option is present or not, whether it is handled correctly or not etc etc etc.

A quote that we should keep in mind, as this is something that I feel we have failed at with IPv6: "Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away"

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email