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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 23 February 2017 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E291299ED for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GoIGMR_LhD85 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EDC51296D3 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z128so461642pgb.0 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:44:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kyrpw+Co3ftVZ7/1TvCpQUg6N07Vm0rc9SVs5oCsuow=; b=HyADY7dvd1ZCzmTA1xXN/jU6WKGeUnfH41tfARX1y+G5CsaQOkt68pm+4tZldtIxMT uNePyQFxBZqeyCpKbrkZXPaR69Kr4i11Z5CiWXoRn4mQV6BqyX0GCIjgUFA40Yffky1s MWiFUcyy38rq8EkalhrsN1dh1Urk/5LN5GPP6773zQpztmNMWQn1nH56q0E3uA5taS+v 9gikuU/FFExUdSnNkFa2D0yifCkoIT/75/JgGPph9/ZtGeyhX0rnd6s3GFKURgAz05xH TJOgwKhS59IHyWASj2BovydF6Axg8T/IfX4G1fv4MphOVGGDcaFSf6ca3v9e9qW1KjfM MqVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kyrpw+Co3ftVZ7/1TvCpQUg6N07Vm0rc9SVs5oCsuow=; b=iWuAkqDLIyQT/92fSwceCejXcWCWFhmhiAUQrhC4tiVk09L7HHv1gF/ZWtE0Cn4UAg Gc2X+VwFh8OEDUn3AmIp8aTLtFjYV+bRReyB4qEVL6oRC7c0dqLYubLTVI2KZVhC1zUe Fhpq9DUz3ruWKlaAxlxHdGPSnWlWwgNAQGyPyRZ0j7pDHg0DEZoxrPBo1GUe3x5dHsc5 mSunoWZ3UC6fPYqhhv5o0qlJA556grKfcd7gVMXv4OtuXHUQ0WCbiWhe5ebVxq71oLBB mtbdhuRyBIPLF+jlJSOiHS/6vCdl1ff7sdhLMLh2uZnb6qz2htp4+Z7pDKRilvwFjC8K kULQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kLGtQqOTNlWeMOuPNCIiNfEQ8q0QqrRev5L8fhAcIltP4iQ4K2U8fMYORN1D3K8A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 137mr47498819pfa.173.1487879086724; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4b1c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4b1c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id y6sm11366944pgc.1.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>, Peter Hessler <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:44:52 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:44:51 -0000

On 24/02/2017 03:14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <> 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.