Re: IPv6 updates & related RA-Guard document

RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com> Wed, 26 September 2012 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <rja.lists@gmail.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 7BA5321F8794 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-xQ9ieBs8Al for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7D621F8792 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so1151016qab.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=dzFiXEPZG8E9h0WNkMS9+C75rcBDSRKrGQb5jDCaSjg=; b=fJpZc9cFUn+kmHlVUKCgNC2EhCaQMUDVSLlKqaX2EQG7tcEArKX9JUOAeLOSQpvq/6 d3LFqVsluBAh2PB7pBymZOa92wyP4AKdiZS02iy4BfEEDaoxFw4iM0HDbFlYR5ctXYoy BD/P67RMg+V8VJ0aXqlNYc/GuC3N3gorEwYuuOMTaiAnHyz2mS/qO1qtTnLo5FSRj0ou Pkb5h0UoSxdrUXePcMgwJeDeHnU7RUxvIL0hmDQ07P/pnqNPr0za9Sx4xEgZD9guri54 dS7OsYyhYK4y/8o+e6koMEJRrNDXx+WKWT86zUEUJdEyOHlfyzEJiyjG3m2zwX83h5aM bzfw==
Received: by 10.224.209.8 with SMTP id ge8mr2243230qab.0.1348666993423; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.20.14] (pool-74-110-100-136.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [74.110.100.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ck11sm4793821qab.17.2012.09.26.06.43.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Subject: Re: IPv6 updates & related RA-Guard document
From: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1209260938010.22890@strudel.ki.iif.hu>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:43:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <3AD20224-EBC3-463C-9433-4015BBC67EF9@gmail.com>
References: <09ABA7A7-8FDE-43AA-B2E6-C4C501995C53@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1209260938010.22890@strudel.ki.iif.hu>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Sep 2012 13:43:14 -0000

On 26  Sep 2012, at 03:41 , Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> RA-guard work mostly done at v6ops.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-08
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04
> 
> Probably drafts should be circulated on v6ops mailing list
> and have support from there.

IETF v6ops WG Charter does not include updates to the
IPv6 specifications.  Quoting from this WG Charter:
	"Specifying any protocols or transition 
	mechanisms is out of scope of the WG."

IETF 6MAN WG Charter DOES include updates to the
IPv6 specifications, again quoting from this WG Charter:
	"The working group will address protocol limitations/issues
	discovered during deployment and operation."

This is why the draft-*-ra-guard-* documents (quoted above)
belong in the IETF v6ops WG, while the 2 different I-Ds 
that I mentioned belong here in the IETF 6MAN WG.

Now, in practice, the 2 draft-ietf-6man-* I-Ds that I mentioned 
before already have been reviewed by many folks in v6ops, 
as part of examining the RA Guard documents, and I believe
there is broad support for these updates within v6ops.
However, these 2 protocol specification updates are required 
to be handled by the IETF 6MAN WG, simply as a matter
of the applicable IETF WG charters and usual IETF processes.

Yours

Ran