Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 71816129BAE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:50:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 nhMhHD41rAmG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:50:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (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 259C01299A8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:50:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 2so393556pfz.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:50:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Fj2b3BHegeTctGMN/WAR0Ly4jb4uikxJDsQN8hmIves=; b=h1RivjDTmx1TyLmjsOBI68V39C0dC0S0ArSZ9/Y0TIDaFPorGEHo1LI6Tm4/58abd/ CkA5O+MGJNGfqGUKf3bUE3n/7vIKbWOUqbHpiiVPXETKLZjhWt4XbTFhCRoDzDp7gir6 pNRpqJtf7ymhq8uIaSGtH0xIgOO5bwWGwTbNdHuaWFk4bLx+y7Pzxfpa2kT0N3iW/RwG sDbrx0EZAxorhcsXmdMZQvKf0cwnhrgNhBoNtbbnDzx9PwhT/3Nlfs54vDphSu4dm8Fd ktfOjKAKgU1X8mwn8DXWnCkFfOmSmjWJNejtUzlGvGr8ov4VKdRBL92HnHu312Wv7hMn TBPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Fj2b3BHegeTctGMN/WAR0Ly4jb4uikxJDsQN8hmIves=; b=cXqMA2bk4iDuu1qS/LovTVQjpPa26ncDFb7rWcqF54YGofecRYUknZ6fq5Lg4RJwwP FaAUld+IuswncTJmSt8i3eGm1PSE+dk0LaBNQWfgjruVHAcMOjpDUQ78HHzkf+i7SXtp zLHxrVAH1fb0tyJP4Vk2djCo0qOlO+sxXCX4Rdry9kA8G5jKLH09VFLxJh1ZACQl869S D+t0gqO7LTdru6h8eTgntIRzptkSv52iJ60+Cekzv/qf39cYFzQvp9h7E5pBeg7XXrMl VEc+DJjEdsjTfQzTSAQgf9+VFAwcV/bhWejrr3lsYiPCCvAYD1rnjuaT4XPX1c1W+SLw JEIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lBCk3coW23kwjqlmTZmVbKoG4UuanRn/B8uSHQaUKPlFunfIjcjHHetxg+lTeAs+dj
X-Received: by 10.98.209.73 with SMTP id t9mr49504619pfl.9.1487890220536; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b190sm11544919pfa.110.2017.02.23.14.50.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:50:18 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/sQIqrwYKTn2yvWB4qG_ZYSwZjrU>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:50:22 -0000

On Feb 23, 2017, at 14:37, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
> 
> If you feel that network interfaces longer than /64 shouldn't be used,
> then please feel free to add text to this ID which reassigns rfc6164 to
> historical.  […]

Hmm, since RFC 6164 is a Standards Track document, it’s already covered as a legitimate exception under the text I already proposed, which seemed mostly well received, except by people who seem to think it’s not enough to recognize standard IETF exceptions to the /64 subnet prefix requirement.

Some participants seem to be promising they will continue objecting to the promotion of RFC 4291 to full Standard until the /64 subnet prefix length requirement is dropped entirely. I think those objections should not block the advancement of this draft.

> As withering aphorisms seem to be the order of the day, either have your
> cake or eat your cake.

Shorter james: have some cake.

--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;