IETF Logo Mail Archive

RFC4890 status was: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-05.txt>

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 03 April 2017 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 10547129450 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 gvd9jrJIiIDW for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (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 0A8B912714F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B8E9C3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:48:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4fMc2yp_RL8x for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-f70.google.com (mail-vk0-f70.google.com [209.85.213.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5375E9CB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-f70.google.com with SMTP id d188so55982271vka.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6eGqYe8BFtq7blfRjlaE6NRWvK0DJ0K0PRvtJzUqWtY=; b=XOksb+iEhSJzkL5cHX578PD2Yhy51LdWM50Xx1RrukFQtYWsu1J8YoiAiLERqnf90l kNs8ySLnOOABTRWXDSif0xZVxy0S+cm+q4lo0id1rbNlRZueOfbH1C4ZwhQ6Qjn4H6uG zfdx75jzZJQ5eOLJg8sQcZTmBGdx8peEqTCgdy7rmIoAFqjS6DB4S6t8SOZj2wDigMJK X6rbDLlFEQxG4PkKxz6xjeYtCcJug8NLnIZN15t4ZJdKWwpIZcKzQ4oPafHvSSESzyZ1 ZuCTEKxcS2xnzt6Zk3nZqDpoDL+oL29eZoxFnWqINUJUrcpSk0J0v8eNDMf7McFr5ZIu nkfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6eGqYe8BFtq7blfRjlaE6NRWvK0DJ0K0PRvtJzUqWtY=; b=EqGN7T/ZVOsnz0zZijA+3W8EjNF+j9WTM9mAxLtUVuPCNt4f9Wyp2VnkmqGJ2SJu59 0wckV2DZZTXnL1JN3fmGGl4Vt+LrCQZMOAd+lpfBECmDk9qW9VDKpt+qVu9Qy2D7NO6s ByXHRX6z5n5R5RQ4KApus7tJuq2hhDVs1vC3F68q9jWcynvh+r8unx34YB4Ce0kFMgDe USF5QWPsOM4MjbhlD9EP2RT42Ki53IWa2HibhMwrbyRnF6Gg6o9x7Jg1ALRZ1VtWfLXZ ysk25t8VIx9zFAaagWuzaDK5pL7wG908yY8mhzJYamdJMBh8Y6CNtmgmL7aak07OuhE9 Sy8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2kiuDP1Hi0Fm1FUyQ1ozsNDvk16a/yZrHrlRJcqczJTxICh4G3MFHdGddrlU1OHA2tLZDnLSzE5UZlcr8GnrVGNOEwMTSxmuZmtaFejgzJMbn8UQA3wtPPbkH4ajQnNe4KaQf5Q3Iy8bw=
X-Received: by 10.31.169.17 with SMTP id s17mr8982193vke.31.1491259685741; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.31.169.17 with SMTP id s17mr8982180vke.31.1491259685490; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.144.27 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:48:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0RMS-V2bOnVvbs7+BkYrrRyhy583F+4=5mEZL4u+YeCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RFC4890 status was: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-05.txt>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114260b6d26b2a054c4af36d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qy3Z6HxLeOWxXbRv2L2lWd3fp14>
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: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 22:48:09 -0000

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 3, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On 31 Mar 2017, at 16:32, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >>  o  Added new text in Section 6 to clarify the effect of
> >>     ICMPv6 filtering on PMTUD.
> >
> > Perhaps reference RFC4890 here?
>
> Thanks.  I think that makes sense.
>

I had a similar thought, but Tim beat me to it.

However when reviewing RFC4890, I noticed that it's status is only
Informational. At this point can anyone tell we why we shouldn't consider
advancing RFC4890 to BCP?

Personally, I was a little shocked it was only Informational.  I'm not sure
advancing it will really fix anything, but I don't see what it could hurt,
maybe more people would take it more seriously.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email