IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 16 August 2017 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A42D91320D9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 jE5gB01L2wWm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 6EDFF13201E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id B04D5B0; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:30:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1502890211; bh=XmRaJTyTmO7+a8RmoBp7SvPw90Dv5z8lgv0IXiqWrAg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BKF4Eqi+FNpfIFOOr/ZUfKS/aPNUhrhD5/L2ZWjv6A9G4SoYi3w7ncVDAP0+sXJmt +iY3JbIpkOXEW1raZi9GqVrxZMHd4pALtR6rpHtPbWQspJiMqpnT80tnN+RVyai1ks 1Ifl9vKX43CeBPIvjUjrWhHrXWSPrc7ZFkC4zH7A=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BD1AF; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:30:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:30:11 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
In-Reply-To: <20170816132113.ADF72828E3BC@rock.dv.isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161529530.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8447.1502388439@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <a3ed97e2-e907-6a20-0d00-6de532784f0c@nostrum.com> <826ee900-0edf-2bb4-ed35-3824b6ad8bba@gmail.com> <2664CA78-2291-46C7-ACF9-460AA3A51706@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708110743410.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <52cae497-9539-3ba3-70b7-0bb55317f986@gmail.com> <12017.1502561028@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708130754510.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8318F69E-BD7C-404F-9420-0FEA1340936E@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151234491.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F7C3A4FB-24A4-4A94-9262-FC4C1BF302B7@employees.org> <55c9de60-fdd7-f8c4-4b6d-29f4878d84da@gmail.com> <13BD69AB-B8DF-4023-85A5-813B6A62775A@employees.org> <3843.1502886797@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAOSSMjVCTMz9K-h08brgs_u5HJjtYmc7RvXrcoB71WgUrhqCLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161444230.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20170816132113.ADF72828E3BC@rock.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qgiX0CVULgqboGI3ljKnKpNqLlA>
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:30:15 -0000

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Mark Andrews wrote:

> It's not just the protocol implementers that get this wrong.  Firewall 
> vendors also get this wrong by blocking packets with reserved bits set. 
> It then takes years longer to deploy extensions that use the reserved 
> bits.

Absolutely. PIX killed ECN for many years.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email