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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 5C7311295BA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:29:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Avs_lTocLG_2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343AF129567 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by opfedar26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E38331C05A0; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:29:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.43]) by opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C84DB180062; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:29:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM5F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e172:f13e:8be6:71cc%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:29:50 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
Subject: RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjg1MtM4MsdvAvU2EBRQMUtfNFKF3wnQA
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:29:49 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E182FD@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr16PZDUEKQHd3At9GRz23EBKL7dTr5+aQCnzOwaT0bAxw@mail.gmail.com> <bf4e62d9-71b3-2b3a-1a57-d4105eca4691@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bf4e62d9-71b3-2b3a-1a57-d4105eca4691@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/uurVeRH9cddoT7Zm-DWCiuhtIUc>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:29:53 -0000

Hi Brian, 

I really hope we will have few words on this topic. 

Pointing to RFC7608 as a general assumption + another one to RFC7421 to clarify that 64 is only a parameter in some schemes would be enough, IMO. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Brian E Carpenter
> Envoyé : jeudi 23 février 2017 20:45
> À : Lorenzo Colitti; Peter Hessler
> Cc : IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Objet : Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
> 
> On 24/02/2017 03:14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>;
> wrote:
> >
> >> As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
> >> you know that many other implementations won't do so either.
> >>
> >> I strongly oppose this draft.
> >>
> >
> > Bit late to object to that text now I'm afraid.
> 
> Nonsense. The exactly correct time to object is when a document is being
> Last Called for Internet Standard status. Until this point in time, IPv6
> has only been a Proposed Standard.
> 
> Actually it has been very educational for me - not in my understanding
> of how IPv6 works, but in showing how badly this particular aspect has
> been
> documented for the last 20 years. Mainly, we've had too many words in the
> addressing architecture. I expect the next version to have fewer words
> on this topic.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------