Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 16 November 2016 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 0524312984F; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:02:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 iYqkEnFKEONM; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E94C2129859; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 189so44410486pfz.3; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:02:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P/vEw06lrOUCoOBjUEPe/uPAFMLADd5CZSZYUheTTow=; b=PgmXSdHT5SfsEslP32x/8z16uL2RnZ0thNuxY6JRzk5oInDMDk/JiYvkru8JoQlavR zMOF1J+oiwpLzIzZHbzTTrCW6w+3J2im1nExb1NCZ3ZxIqMQid9/PwiIUI+jncDF2aMl u4HL6dUy5+8lxJ6qv/S6iV4ml19sLDbKXgm8Ws10qdOTEmYe3/zECiLB7AFTBCeTfrQz wZnEiEKiUJNYebNrwI7nWcAqo9Rox5zmjL9/aE7/RlIR/1vhv7MFuJwO23GiIX4O1LMQ H5otbZMAhcIMPngGm4AB9Z/24xdODZEFvJPVLpAR5IaJPxIqsWkfEpCXI2MCn3xYN/1m takQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; 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=P/vEw06lrOUCoOBjUEPe/uPAFMLADd5CZSZYUheTTow=; b=PBHDrnB0aJH/b8dbLttZLS2017BKnR5UqG2H26Q2vAOg61Acf3bRQS4WNb80fkeJts 5/1lgVopmYguvzVBmuvwTiLfBVxv2UTT2uo5xh9cBoCK0Vlw3YWJeXncO3xlS46L9KmQ yTKeXw+i5o51RxrbCvqXrD/tifGiR99RIiRKuDi1HV1O73bPKGLJfRLnnqKh3jkgTfyH IFzEjgEy6p9pDo0d3gsvGLExYryL+4MQjWCOKssAYVZRRT4KE567YEa5ALNPbN1d5DKw H8EsN6a4MntUKvQfxq19yIl88+jgXA+vgJIBKrYpqLA8Pn38ePe62VwiKTPVgOxfRrMp ZTTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvchzX2lFZuatLh1Zckz5PxrPFmXc0R+5PfsO6laHDRJuvwA8X9bQMwhZ0VjwRmnCA==
X-Received: by 10.99.122.92 with SMTP id j28mr11965526pgn.64.1479326523531; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (153.23.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.23.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c2sm56499179pfl.66.2016.11.16.12.02.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <451D4151-B805-4A2E-8BAC-B6627C0B669C@employees.org> <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <189a5939-71c8-f686-b34c-cbf410d55374@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:02:06 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xsoHTd0MLqckxESHnN-Pyp1KR4M>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 6man-chairs@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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:02:31 -0000

On 17/11/2016 08:18, 神明達哉 wrote:
...
> Assuming so, I'd like to say I still have a serious concern with this
> text in that it's as "ambiguous" to the extent the original RFC2460
> was ambiguous...

I think the question of principle here is whether a document with
a known ambguity is qualified to become an Internet Standard.

If this WG can make no more progress on that question (and I have
sympathy with the WG Chairs on that), it becomes a question for
the community and the IESG during IETF Last Call.

As far as I can tell, ambiguity is not mentioned explicitly in
RFC 2026 or RFC 6410.

   Brian