IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 14 November 2017 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 A0C5D127275 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:45:42 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 D_FeoEl72aOM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:45:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22c.google.com (mail-pg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 504011205F0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:45:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id c123so6102075pga.11 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:45:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ZD+VhUDOHVY4FWGAFSn3qWtZJwhPt4sihpAeefPiSag=; b=HTEm6Zjmy/QrUcApktuDgtl1NvgW0RKa2QCQxlMFgYzdZvhMIyrAmBMla/CVgq/Tob KmmAKk8T2qvPmqOswyR2w3q3a1Mb34W3XOUWMzTLR9a6N6LbdTJXrnnKbwpKR/HLPy/m 639yKEOfCIfhCuVZCUMhfSSSjU5VBXHkHKJtfBFDmH6F0RjjvaRFDYUet0Xt3It8Xb/x 5f5NVsoIyIFI+xd9pU2Rn57cw5b8LYTiCCKCDVG56zPm5EP08abBOiZu7PI3wKn+vVle GmRyD98mURTiL1NVC2MV47X2SXgNtv8CdYZkkq0wmU5sYJ7bOY6LcqQAvq0kOayi/Cee vGhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ZD+VhUDOHVY4FWGAFSn3qWtZJwhPt4sihpAeefPiSag=; b=UCtoGbfuTSu6qrHZXrftmQ0PUwh1cUo+/pMMA250tPywv2Wu9HDMDsiIas5JPJjByd /6Eh3eC3QbTfLfdChTa+oAVBotSF2QV9CoXujxymz0TaRX1bgQ+K6V8JszUy2P95oHEk LhWdSN/8sJO55vcpnfRiGxJ+RkP+zzWosv7BqDOXqvdXr3RW3reaAWzHKUCitJgjLhsD tJLg1DNkUG55Pap3tfCHw2yr8AXWGsrS11Dv/LYOmX2w0/lMMw/ZDn+MxsY3jnxX6viw pCc7qpMU5U5k6ttXYj7GoPiBDy3wpYq1vK5kDeTCS1chEnSihr/P8hqnEpdkVGjDPsSO yNqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7/LA9SLsuxeSKa23IjvvZksZAg3EDiIysXfkxI5bJJIA3jwohY VKd7fJPLNM9YCDgk0xJMaABx8Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaMG39vI83umZ62kTLlX/AvMgoHOSzgnUfGgY7eT64oCXxVUrwz/HUiWIzunJU5r1GmjLuskQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.165.171 with SMTP id y40mr11068696pla.362.1510623940926; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:45:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:2552:171a:b18:8a8c? ([2001:67c:1232:144:2552:171a:b18:8a8c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z16sm1867969pge.62.2017.11.13.17.45.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:45:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <E7F9E3EF-B5AA-4698-8BBC-772228129277@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7CFF9108-9028-492F-9880-75FC2F557CF7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:45:37 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xqwRH94dw=XJf5mt3STdDcTYmB_i1NbXP46shdJQeaPA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <862687c9-c107-53a8-288a-29049097b0e1@acm.org> <AM5PR0701MB2836C00EA1AAC73E7E63F583E02B0@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2xacRco7ne7biQ93so0k-x4xSnM2jzoB13-sdVRLshQDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Zz6Jxg_ZuEbBkMhBdEaZKOrtx-eUns7KWi9v-5PDBzg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xqwRH94dw=XJf5mt3STdDcTYmB_i1NbXP46shdJQeaPA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qS9Rm1qv34gPzW9a2GSs2_ycbhA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:45:43 -0000

On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why are we holding this document up on this?
> Half baked cakes aren't cakes, even though they may look like them.

FWIW, "we" aren't holding up this document.   It's in AUTH48.   The working group already has consensus on the document, the IESG has approved it, and at this point the only changes allowed are editorial changes that do not substantively change what the document says.   The working group has no agency here: this is entirely up to the authors and the AD.

If the authors or the AD were to make substantive changes to the document, that would be grounds for an appeal by the working group.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email