Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org> Mon, 27 August 2007 18:23 UTC
Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPjFF-0000yB-9x; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:23:25 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPjFD-0000y6-GX for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:23:23 -0400
Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([2001:240:501:0:204:23ff:fecb:8908]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPjFC-0000jb-Vk for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:23:23 -0400
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C0C233E8; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:23:19 +0900 (JST)
To: Jason Schiller <schiller@uu.net>
In-reply-to: schiller's message of Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:08:56 -0400. <Pine.GSO.4.20.0708271348200.6917-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:23:19 +0900
Message-Id: <20070827182319.A4C0C233E8@coconut.itojun.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
>> see the text carefully. (1) says "deprecate *RH0*", (2) says >> "restrict the usage of *RH0*". it is not about RHx. will your >> choice change because of this? > >I am quite aware that choice 1 is Deprecate RH0 and choice 2 is restrict >usage of RH0, and neither relates to RHx. > >I think maybe you are missing my point. It relates to a more general >discussion of source routing and feature parity in IPv4 and IPv6. If you (snip) ok, i assume you have not seen this. http://www.natisbad.org/. the key topic being discussed here with the draft is URGENT need to publish the deprecation/restriction of RH0. please refrain from generalizing the problem, until RH0 RFC goes out of the door. we can handle your generic opinions about the source routing in general some other time. again, it is about rather serious security problem, which risked the DNS root name servers. it's quite serious and really urgent. the RFC publication should have finished way earlier. itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Suresh Krishnan
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation james woodyatt
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation George V. Neville-Neil
- New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Bob Hinden
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Andrew Sullivan
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Ryan McBride
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Joe Abley
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Vishwas Manral
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Ignatios Souvatzis
- RE: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Bonness, Olaf
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation David Malone
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jari Arkko
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Tim Enos
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jason Schiller
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Tim Enos
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation briand
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jason Schiller
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation james woodyatt
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Dow Street
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation briand
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation James Carlson
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Arnaud Ebalard
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation briand
- IPv4 (was: Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecat… Jari Arkko
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Suresh Krishnan
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation James Carlson
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jason Schiller
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Scott Leibrand
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Dow Street
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jason Schiller
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Andrew Sullivan
- RH0 bad (for my network) Jason Schiller
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation David Malone
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Christopher Morrow
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Arnaud Ebalard
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Christopher Morrow
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation Jari Arkko