IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 25 November 2019 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 A1351120FAB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:05:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 rPJ5qIh8yOYU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D25B5120058 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:04:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD58F6B; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:04:35 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:in-reply-to:references:message-id:date:date:subject :subject:mime-version:from:from:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1574718992; bh=I35HVCx+a0LAPGNBPm3/qcalunl/7PIE8QPOI9devCc=; b=R CprqUekqA3WkotRSMMm2CHWYL8vdkptP35ZldUuryM107w72EAg8B2hFpkb25H3U MlP0wQ5v6iRChxkfpPgk7h0PXhjp7N3O7DLREEfj4SiVdLFg8LvyzfbpkUS4Deke 5c4qHx86Oy21lnq3PR7OmdxuOm7LGGX62LOTvpRrZ4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id PyF4byv9yrr8; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:56:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:3ca0:567b:7339:a785] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:3ca0:567b:7339:a785]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93B3364; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:56:31 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-E9400BEF-AC14-4590-99AD-D2991901482F"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:56:30 +0100
Message-Id: <F7C2BB74-68D4-40AE-BD2A-AE8BF4EE35F3@steffann.nl>
References: <DBBPR03MB5415188E60803F939BF209A6EE4A0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR03MB5415188E60803F939BF209A6EE4A0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B111)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wb_lqzwsZG-9I4qEJvq1e94Zzk0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:05:02 -0000

Hi,

> Agreed that its covered for independent submission – and if they do indicate that relationship, I’ve got no issues with an independent submission, and if I am reading the list correctly, that is what some of the others are saying as well – my issue here is on the standards track where you have something that conflicts directly – and is a publication of how someone is violating another rfc – that’s not a standard – and I don’t believe it belongs on the standards track.

Agreed.
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email