Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id

Le 2013-02-28 20:51, Ole Troan a ?crit :
> - Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
>    (if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)

Yes,

Someone said: Why do a document for IPv6 for Things That Were Well Known in
IPv4?

and i wonder:

Why not do it right in IPv6, even though we know it is a problem that has
existed for IPv4?

IPv6 is a new protocol, and probably in a few years the new generation of
internet professionals might hear about IPv4, as we hear today about IPX,
(as History).

I understand that this is a known weakness, even so could affect some
systems, so why not correct this?

I think this topic deserves further discussed

regards

Juan Antonio Matos

Dominican Civil Aviation Institute

>    1. Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF86 (Fernando Gont)
>    2. Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
>       (Simon Perreault)
>    3. Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
>       (Ole Troan)
>    4. Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
>       (Simon Perreault)
>    5. Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
>       (Fernando Gont)
>    6. Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
>       (Simon Perreault)
>    7. Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
>       (Ole Troan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:27:11 -0300
> From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF86
> Message-ID: <5138090F.9030007@si6networks.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Bob,
>
> On 03/05/2013 07:42 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >
> >> draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier : 2 discussion on the list :
> >> 15 mins
> >
> > This was the chairs call as we thought there would be interest in it.
> > Given the discussion on the list, there appears to be more interest
> > in <draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt> and we propose to
> > swap them.  There isn't time for everything.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I personally oppose to such idea. This is my reasoning:
>
> * draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier has already been in the position
> of "this will be discussed if time permits" (and at the time, time
> didn't permit). Hence it's time to allocate a slot to this I-D. The same
> reasoning should apply to draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt
> for the next IETF meeting.
>
> * draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier is pretty much straight-forward
> so that may be one reason for which you didn't see more discussion about
> it. I'd expect that discussion during the 6man wg meeting will be brief,
> and hence we'll be able to move forward to the next document even before
> the allocated time is used.
>
> * Changing agendas once published is, IMO, a bad idea (unless really
> necessary).
>
>
> FWIW, I should note that I do support
> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt -- i.e., the reasoning
> above doesn't have anything to do with the contents of
> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt itself.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:44:27 +0100
> From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
> Message-ID: <5138617B.5020207@viagenie.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Le 2013-02-28 20:51, Ole Troan a ?crit :
> > - Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
> >    (if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)
>
> Yes.
>
> I think the document is very useful. The fact that there are so many
> popular implementations out there that get this kind of thing wrong
> shows a need for good documentation. This draft explains the problem,
> says clearly what needs to be done, and describes good and practical
> algorithms. And there's a survey of current implementations as a bonus
> in the appendix. This is exactly the kind of good quality information
> that the IETF needs to provide.
>
> Simon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:09:55 +0100
> From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
> To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
> Message-ID: <65CB8751-4CBF-46DE-9860-8964BE8AA20F@cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Simon,
>
> >> - Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
> >>   (if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > I think the document is very useful. The fact that there are so many
> popular implementations out there that get this kind of thing wrong shows a
> need for good documentation. This draft explains the problem, says clearly
> what needs to be done, and describes good and practical algorithms. And
> there's a survey of current implementations as a bonus in the appendix.
> This is exactly the kind of good quality information that the IETF needs to
> provide.
>
> - are you willing to work on the document?
> - do you think this should be done in 6man or elsewhere?
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:13:47 +0100
> From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
> To: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
> Message-ID: <5138685B.4040603@viagenie.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Le 2013-03-07 11:09, Ole Troan a ?crit :
> > Simon,
> >
> >>> - Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
> >>>    (if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> I think the document is very useful. The fact that there are so many
> popular implementations out there that get this kind of thing wrong shows a
> need for good documentation. This draft explains the problem, says clearly
> what needs to be done, and describes good and practical algorithms. And
> there's a survey of current implementations as a bonus in the appendix.
> This is exactly the kind of good quality information that the IETF needs to
> provide.
> >
> > - are you willing to work on the document?
>
> Yes.
>
> > - do you think this should be done in 6man or elsewhere?
>
> 6man
>
> Simon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:28:24 -0300
> From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
> To: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
> Message-ID: <51386BC8.4090104@si6networks.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Ole,
>
> On 03/07/2013 07:09 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> >
> > - are you willing to work on the document?
>
> I'm really curious about these questions.
>
> What does "working on a document" mean? For instance, it's probably the
> first time I see this question asked when polling the wg for support of
> a document.
>
>
>
> > - do you think this should be done in 6man or elsewhere?
>
> That aside, this document aims to update RFC 2460. Where else should
> that be done, if not in 6man??
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:44:08 +0100
> From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
> To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
> Cc: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
> Message-ID: <51386F78.8010203@viagenie.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Le 2013-03-07 11:28, Fernando Gont a ?crit :
> > What does "working on a document" mean? For instance, it's probably the
> > first time I see this question asked when polling the wg for support of
> > a document.
>
> It's common. I understand it to mean reviewing the draft, providing
> comments, etc.
>
> > That aside, this document aims to update RFC 2460. Where else should
> > that be done, if not in 6man??
>
> That's a technicality. What's more important is that the relevant
> expertise is in 6man.
>
> Simon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:02:27 +0100
> From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
> To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
> Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
> Message-ID: <BE2D7D21-963F-4215-8389-0005064A6B7B@cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Simon,
>
> >> What does "working on a document" mean? For instance, it's probably the
> >> first time I see this question asked when polling the wg for support of
> >> a document.
> >
> > It's common. I understand it to mean reviewing the draft, providing
> comments, etc.
>
> yes.
>
> >> That aside, this document aims to update RFC 2460. Where else should
> >> that be done, if not in 6man??
> >
> > That's a technicality. What's more important is that the relevant
> expertise is in 6man.
>
> when this document was presented in 6man at IETF84, there were suggestions
> that a more generic
> document could be written. e.g. in intarea.
>
> I don't want us to end up with an RFC per field per protocol.
>
> there isn't an equivalent document for IPv4, right?
>
> there are other alternatives too, e.g. an errata to 2460, or an update to
> the nodes requirement document.
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipv6 mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>
> End of ipv6 Digest, Vol 107, Issue 9
> ************************************
>