[OPSEC] WG adoption request: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-02.txt
"Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com> Tue, 21 August 2012 11:29 UTC
Return-Path: <gvandeve@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F261D21F8628 for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01GoIesdlgnR for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F77221F856F for <opsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=788; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1345548584; x=1346758184; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kaSd27JEMts78tXqSaDQSxlMiD2qOs/AxZZpVs5/lHg=; b=l4DFVMbjK6V6OHTJVzWQTt4L0x/fXPNaC8KEP82ihQ0YFYfyUNbTJQP7 UhHGxCfOy2Kg+JbzNaZh7CT34kS5a6tf+nsdE57lQkmyF/Ig2tJCzq6Ax 2tS1e1VWCzj/pkkLQ2grq15+KrpK7PObwvDNLnbCQv6NaWU90ZA9QyV9I U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjAFANVwM1CtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABFhTq1JYEHgiABAQEEEgEnNAsMBgEZBAEBCxQJORQJCQEEAQ0FCBqHa5kMoDWLCIY8YAOjf4FmgmE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,802,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="110727246"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2012 11:29:34 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7LBTYkR007204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:29:34 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.122]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:29:33 -0500
From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, "'opsec@ietf.org'" <opsec@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG adoption request: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-02.txt
Thread-Index: Ac1/kBx4rtGr56t9R0+XsilPyCcPpg==
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:29:33 +0000
Message-ID: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B24077F1E@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.100.21]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19128.004
x-tm-as-result: No--33.052300-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: opsec chairs <opsec-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSEC] WG adoption request: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-02.txt
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:29:45 -0000
I forgot to mention: 2 weeks timing for providing feedback. G/ -----Original Message----- From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) Sent: 21 August 2012 13:27 To: Fernando Gont; 'opsec@ietf.org' Cc: opsec chairs Subject: Re: [OPSEC] New Rev of draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-02.txt With this note the OPSEC chairs would like to probe for WG adoption. During the cause of events and discussion on the WG mailing list, this document has been seen as valuable for the WG to adopt as work item. 2 questions need to be addressed: 1. Please find 2 weeks to provide feedback on this draft. Please say yes/no on WG adoption. 2. Should this be BCP or Informational track G/
- [OPSEC] WG adoption request: draft-gont-opsec-ipv… Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)