IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-10.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 16 August 2012 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DC421F8644 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 nq3A85mZsEEz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FA321F85C4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUC1PoppHPY4JYIZU5hD5GtTfvzgvGMEK@postini.com; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:53:08 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460431B830A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C122190052; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:53:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:53:05 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-10.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNe8+olXva8xUzuU+K+l5W0q4CfZddIMYAgAABKgCAAAYBgIAABu8AgAAegACAAAHWAA==
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:53:04 +0000
Message-ID: <7FD516DF-3445-4E80-BD10-78C6096B823C@nominum.com>
References: <20BACF78-57F2-4455-A0A5-F15822DB2015@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4ECD56@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9E042EC6-07B9-4F7C-A50B-6A9F01BCD668@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4ECDB6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <53DAE40C-AADF-490E-B471-CEB32407D651@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4ECEA8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B890708FB@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B890708FB@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7FD516DF34454E80BD1078C6096B823Cnominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Operations Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:53:09 -0000

On Aug 16, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
The -10 was published today to address review in the IESG.  Thus we really should stay away from adding any new requirement to rfc6204bis.

Okay, sorry—I didn't realize it was in IESG review.   Maybe in 6204bisbis...

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status