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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Thu, 23 February 2017 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 B3DC9129BAA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:37:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GqZlknNh9ZWj for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE58A129B9F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:37:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.foobar.org (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v1NMbVuD021293 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:37:31 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.foobar.org
Message-ID: <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:37:29 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.10 (Macintosh/20170123)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ypFyZY0HhKencFBDgnKP2CALnqI>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:37:40 -0000

james woodyatt wrote:
> Needs of the many. Needs of the few. Seems like an obvious balancing problem to me.

If you feel that network interfaces longer than /64 shouldn't be used,
then please feel free to add text to this ID which reassigns rfc6164 to
historical.  If you don't want to do this or feel that it wouldn't gain
consensus, then please don't propose renewing a specification which
explicitly contradicts another standards track document which is in
widescale current production use.

As withering aphorisms seem to be the order of the day, either have your
cake or eat your cake.

Nick