Re: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 17:01 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 21BF711E86A2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9rsL13S6KcIg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABE211E8604 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w62so6724423wes.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:01:14 -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:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jevm8ISU3OENU+Oc//g6XaF5Q148YutseF51nKInrtY=; b=CBM8zKTOfH6eO412Plbio/0nwScu0RLCFSB+3VLPSHSd56vRBAXyqlmPdHOM2IDIJ+ liCwogYzIVRLMxbAUjJErHSMnAJ5BjCeH/NFqcJrcukA/jYKsgHsY7Wcf0zEySnVCelU MvBbiyOFl/DRqdfd8vAhBkSLpZQy+qfVh3YV8dyFEgwN6Ytg7HHdsjp1+iJ/q9LNk0Nd RdZ8x0MmYPJxekyyj/gjVx3aSD7EQ9O5x6XSxVzTt6Jx8Aeu6iHtekfEQmIEZI3393OK cIgpsAsYDOVD6EaCHFKChD2fJwI16PbdQEzJFMwnvRaHlKONg1uVHXKFWwMon7PK2Goj b5Sg==
X-Received: by 10.194.240.129 with SMTP id wa1mr14519553wjc.31.1382374874800; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.24] (c-24-130-151-138.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.151.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gg20sm56481539wic.1.2013.10.21.10.01.12 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181353A9@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:01:09 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <99FA6EFF-E860-4DC1-8BB3-1759F135483A@gmail.com>
References: <526296B8.5080108@innovationslab.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831813500F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2D191A96-1EF1-4792-8C26-6C7B5D835C72@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181353A9@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:01:26 -0000
Fred, >> I don't think it is appropriate for a draft that is updating an >> experimental RFC to update a standards track RFC. It will cause a lot >> of confusion in the community. > > I think then that we would need to re-target SEAL as standards-track, > and as obsoleting the previous experimental RFC. I can make that > change in the next draft version so that it is clear that we are > not trying to make an experimental update a standards track. > > Then, I guess the next question is whether we want to continue with > SEAL as an individual sub or bring it in as a 6man wg item? I am > open to either approach. I don't know what is appropriate, but there would have to be enough interest in taking on this work. I have only seen one person talking about it. But as I said, in it's current state it is not appropriate to update a standards track RFC. Bob
- Re-use of fragment header in SEAL Brian Haberman
- RE: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL Templin, Fred L
- Re: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL Bob Hinden
- RE: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL Templin, Fred L
- Re: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL Bob Hinden
- RE: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL Templin, Fred L