IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-07: (with COMMENT)

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 24 August 2016 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514BB12D658 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 XmrAEwZXPp3X for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) (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 752D012D645 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-18v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.114]) by resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id ccyibRD5xTaLwcczbb1WJ6; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:33:39 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.100.16.189]) by resomta-ch2-18v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id cczabhhdwxqA0cczbbLJcI; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:33:39 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u7OIXcjP029140; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:33:38 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u7OIXbJf029137; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:33:37 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <EE194FB9-1BDF-44E9-AFAD-F8E53F736BDB@kuehlewind.net> (ietf@kuehlewind.net)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:33:36 -0400
Message-ID: <87mvk2xbi7.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfHHfmxk6YavI5tgpOsE7AEe7f/oRZq9UEHlsL+ameoZqdViE6YqwaS7LEQkaFA1gfBgYOw5K+qiCx0diJHFk0LcTb1KHw8OyAi/2WNFlwa1jiiAINdGm 0vABAqjyaxLOKPXYmYNemxEgceixVhRmX/eudTyVpOVu1aSdjaTVxOrl1YEdDZrkSSKT4tLArfz/5s4+93aCs5GWGS3K+juLkrU5m2qIog/kl7dFsZd0fSRx NZg1e4FiciR8Q41FPsXPDxOejAdqQ9/w0RO0bIWPNYfGkNm2FNJv1zG83ihFzopsoY3MdY0z5NNrqB2oioGAdAWMq5L9z5lJ/GA/oG0T8no=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/xevn-_Iq8mkDXGazk26uhrCobZQ>
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:33:43 -0000

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> writes:
>>> And related to this question: Shouldn't it be named "multi-stack client"
>>> instead of "dual-stack client"?
>> 
>> Strictly speaking, "multi-stack client" is more robust against the
>> possibility that a third address family is introduced.  However, the
>> term "dual-stack" is what has been used in all of the discussions
>> regarding the transition to using IPv6, so we have continued its use in
>> this draft in the narrative portions.  OTOH, all of the normative text
>> is written to operate correctly even if further address families are
>> introduced.
>
> I noticed that the whole doc is written in a way that would correctly
> operate with new address families. That's we I suggested this
> change. I think that this term would be as easily understandable as
> the current dual-stack term. But I don’t have a strong opinion, so
> please just use what you think is better.

We've kept the term "dual-stack" because that's what's been used in all
the Happy Eyeballs-related discussions, but we've revised the
Terminology section to make it clear that "dual-stack" includes any
situation "where the client has access to multiple communication methods
that have distinct addressing characteristics".

I've updated the draft -08.  You can see the differences in
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=3Ddraft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-07&ur=
l2=3Dhttp://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/worley/draft-ietf-sipcore-d=
ns-dual-stack-08.txt
and the entire current draft in
http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/worley/draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-du=
al-stack-08.{txt,html}

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email