IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets

"Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com> Sat, 18 August 2012 07:53 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 8C92321F84D9 for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, 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 ylMfx3-6CXYq for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0949421F84A0 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=gvandeve@cisco.com; l=1056; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1345276380; x=1346485980; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5c7tagIthnIDYFFohWpHQGR6UQxRHHcWOCExcvw7o5s=; b=XqPvWLeC33iNmDvE67VNYfqlLVrMc7F1MuWRmqsPaXE+DA1DNvcgSkXu dNmZcM0nVTU4gBnWnAUlUr+7ouoQz2ZYvYLdKpCbTQsth8PpR/QIK19mW UCiMErL+cM9YR0zV607/vXBkZ8FeV1IKoSc3Lf50xKSMkg1pn1q8ez3bS M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJ9IL1CtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABEuj+BB4IgAQEBBBIBCh0/DAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAEBBA4FCBqHa5oAoB6LCxqGGGADo3uBZoJggWE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,790,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="112925148"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2012 07:52:59 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7I7qx9l016716 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:52:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.122]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:52:58 -0500
From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
Thread-Index: Ac18T01ACwflm2isSWu2MfBRi7t6fAANIVgAACShttA=
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:52:58 +0000
Message-ID: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B24076A9B@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com>
References: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240761BE@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> <502E0D7C.3080504@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <502E0D7C.3080504@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.104.151]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19122.004
x-tm-as-result: No--33.906900-8.000000-31
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@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
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: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:53:00 -0000

I would be inclined to go for your option #2 and see if there is rough consensus on the point of track.

G/

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com] 
Sent: 17 August 2012 11:23
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
Cc: opsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets

Hi, Gunter,

On 08/17/2012 05:10 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> I have seen more supportive messages as un-supportive messages on this 
> draft.
> 
> Once you have updated the draft, we will do a 2 week call for WG 
> adoption on the email list.

The only remaining bit to act/decide upon is the track. I've seen mixed opinions on the subject.

Should the wg be polled about adoption on the document, and then decide on the track? Should the poll be about adopting the document *and* about the desired track?

Thanks!

Best regards,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email