IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-01

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Wed, 04 January 2017 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
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 0680F1294A4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:47:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=jisc365.onmicrosoft.com
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 VLSSMURXx9TB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [207.82.80.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E121129B96 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:47:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-jisc-ac-uk; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=dcKlJuifF7zlAkqCsqSRfaO/AkMz+BTalbcx0wozzzk=; b=ThnXSqct4bkbNZn10j92fHo1o5ZjPtGeI/pMYyOT0iAOLiENxwfur+KaM6mcucDfLCevEx8R6sw93h3e/jrgRezf8nHY7SW4O4RrjOh1l5xjq277pf8d4s3E6hnASHz/uuFCbr+hLBVvcYtE5IyKbwWyQ/j8unGWzgYweTnSN5o=
Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am5eur03lp0120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.120]) (Using TLS) by eu-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-34-_xUCUYLMNoi_wjdk4oCXFA-1; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:47:35 +0000
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.188.14) by AM3PR07MB1139.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.188.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.829.4; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:47:34 +0000
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::292e:d46e:7c2b:75c6]) by AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::292e:d46e:7c2b:75c6%15]) with mapi id 15.01.0829.003; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:47:34 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-01
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-01
Thread-Index: AQHSYUSKP4RyXDRcfEW58qB9cBducaEd5l2AgAMk2QCAAAIlgIADXd2AgAAA0wCAAeDKAIABs7uAgAALSQA=
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:47:34 +0000
Message-ID: <280F2FFC-E778-4A0C-B4A7-7AF215588A8A@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <CACL8_9EaZ-JM-MSwzUZijAZqu12dAfA+rtHoraKcn9U3Bt7JAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xYRjWirdAdN2+-THR2d-wmama1j-HF8ANCCgZ4-zozvA@mail.gmail.com> <F38BC011-B0C0-4539-B5CC-17458EAA6989@gmail.com> <027a01d262e7$f30b30d0$d9219270$@riw.us> <9A4806E3-70B8-46E7-921D-4BA0817B16C7@gmail.com> <88D7C907-1BD2-40E7-9DEA-5BAF42688046@gmail.com> <245a034f-1e15-2556-c39e-f950bea5263f@si6networks.com> <43943ea7-6ae2-91f0-9518-a3c61fcb0a22@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <43943ea7-6ae2-91f0-9518-a3c61fcb0a22@bogus.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [194.82.140.195]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a256b3a3-df59-4661-c8ff-08d4347e53da
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM3PR07MB1139; 7:XuvV/0uR3mZNv+mY7cG/ALOevcbqO2/LbCBJFqxLYZlQcwgjbyt3neR8RNADmdi0IrqqkPceGzZN27CF/uPCba9QzQJeT7bywgQxKFB29CsF3Xs5eQtw5MUesBdSGzCwZsYLJBMY63SEfeac7RuL8gQVt5t0pPT6poaOWKjKks5qV9UwxXV6taYeEIyHN3/Gb34d5fVWEigEn6R9yQN237KmRiksbf25c/P68UaJacGs/WQSfq4CfhJ5J0lOnL+9J6wdtAcvb9gVG7tREiJBeZDMnpFrs1iDMkfuaRonr/nd8FWEKQG9Deta62wyKimlfxmhcsAeRNLPZLaoNlLcraebA4qcA3Wcl87fdqDCvT81GFOgCm8A0uzSRI1AIEi93WP48IzzEmoncv9jSRMwty1cnZZS3ldcvh2KwiFHq7S4QvbKLZObBQQh/1Mwl3115FLg4bBL4teq3jm6c4laZw==; 20:hK0eATqh6znZyWqCqKX0u2Wi3f0lpWLV6NgBEkc/1iSdaF9EDjIpKNN2PQtX8G/rjNpv7F5KwiV4Fk4HS6ZjFpGtxAsU7pbLUzHoRaz1JLmvq7sTFYH8VntcSe31xazRHn1B4ks/xstV3jZ0XGR8+7SLUTVMMFYM6dLWCIa6KCY=
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM3PR07MB1139B01B6C47B9D72FC7DCCCD6610@AM3PR07MB1139.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139;
x-forefront-prvs: 0177904E6B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(39450400003)(24454002)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(92566002)(38730400001)(6512006)(6506006)(39060400001)(6436002)(68736007)(189998001)(5660300001)(36756003)(3280700002)(229853002)(97736004)(57306001)(42882006)(6916009)(110136003)(2950100002)(4326007)(83716003)(99286003)(5250100002)(2906002)(66066001)(106356001)(106116001)(82746002)(54906002)(74482002)(230783001)(8936002)(7736002)(8676002)(102836003)(81156014)(81166006)(93886004)(105586002)(6116002)(50986999)(86362001)(76176999)(33656002)(3660700001)(101416001)(2900100001)(6486002)(3846002)(50226002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139; H:AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jan 2017 08:47:34.2232 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM3PR07MB1139
X-MC-Unique: _xUCUYLMNoi_wjdk4oCXFA-1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_280F2FFCE7784A0CB4A77AF215588A8Ajiscacuk_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wnQxBpigrzgX9sL_uSPO4_XJbrk>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Russ White <russ@riw.us>, Mohammad Moghaddas <mohammad@moghaddas.com>, "draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs@tools.ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
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: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:47:46 -0000

On 4 Jan 2017, at 08:07, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com>> wrote:

On 1/2/17 10:07 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 01/01/2017 10:26 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>>
wrote:


On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Russ White <russ@riw.us<mailto:russ@riw.us>> wrote:


It is indeed an individual draft, and to my knowledge no given
working
group
has been asked for opinions. That said, we welcome any and all
review. Specifically, I have copied v6ops and 6man on this
note.
We would like to present it to a WG as a work item--which WG
would be best for this one? There are some sections that need to
be filled before we present it, I think.

:-)

Russ
Personaly opinion: this isn’t about IPv6 per se, it is about the
operation of an IPv6 network. I’d suggest v6ops.
Note that I’m not precluding 6man input. I’m asking what change or
clarification in IPv6 implementations (e.g., IPv6 Maintenance) is
called for. I don’t think there are any. I think it comments on how
IPv6 is used operationally, and by extension, what an operator might
expect to find in IPv6 implementations he deploys.
I somewhat agree, but: wasn't the Node Requirements RFC produced by
6man? -- this one should be similar in nature...
and 6204 / 7084 / 7849 were done in v6ops, it's not that unusual a style
of document generally speaking.

This draft is a little different to RFC6434; there’s more operational/design text in there.

The important thing is that, given it looks like really nice work, it gets adopted somewhere :)

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email