[savi] PIO-X considerations
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 30 November 2016 06:59 UTC
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7879F129431 for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:59:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 NThaZXkX1o7d for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12CDC1295C5 for <savi@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 775ABA9; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:59:07 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1480489147; bh=vkEzOjUvq+BQDMOT7w1KX4fRoRJTl7ZTgtmLqTdaqh4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=QSmzNNPvXAoRTlaKeEnysifJESex2GE2GhTWLzflDd/Uth6RWeM//gMlqy/THmMnT vce9GBTuoP4GlrB31SrhjBmAF9w70y6Tj+eD3Y6AiSooJ5udb0omrsI+TiKC9uuKrb SYYRCmsTaVKJCI0I3BT0r3eaoql3vPJ09Ha8H8kQ=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6869CA8 for <savi@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:59:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:59:07 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: savi@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1611300757220.3558@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/savi/XCxxonRB2OavrEOpxSS0zM86FFo>
Subject: [savi] PIO-X considerations
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/savi/>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:59:13 -0000
Hi, we have proposed https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-01 in 6man. I'd like to understand more how SAVI documents would be impacted by this. Would a new SAVI document be created if PIO-X flag would get adopted by 6man, or should our document update any existing SAVI document(s)? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
- [savi] PIO-X considerations Mikael Abrahamsson