Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: protocols supported
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Sun, 27 July 2008 17:40 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023733A6933 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w+YDQzQ0Hqhm for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CDD53A68AA for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KNACq-0004yw-L6 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:38:52 +0000
Received: from [2001:670:86:3001::1] (helo=netcore.fi) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <pekkas@netcore.fi>) id 1KNACn-0004yD-VO for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:38:51 +0000
Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6RHceAT002491; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:38:41 +0300
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id m6RHceMb002487; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:38:40 +0300
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:38:40 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
cc: 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: protocols supported
In-Reply-To: <4889FA54.2090600@it.uc3m.es>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0807272034280.2217@netcore.fi>
References: <4889FA54.2090600@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LRH 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/7840/Sun Jul 27 03:10:52 2008 on otso.netcore.fi
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Question: what is the rationale we include TLS here? souyld we have a citeria > of which protocols shoudl be in this req? > > Question: should we move DCCP and SCTP to MUST rahter than SHOULD? (Magnus, > is this what you were requesting in your emails before?) We could require a lot of things. The main thing this could have impact on is the length of the specification and the time it would take to develop it; I don't see how it could help in selecting solutions because all the solutions could be extended to provide this functionality. In all probability it would have zero impact on what gets deployed out there. I.e.: even if such functionality would be a MUST in a solution, vendors and providers would likely, at least initially, ship a NATxx box that wouldn't support these features. As such, I see little value in practise of adding SCTP or DCCP to the 'must' list. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: protoc… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: pr… Rémi Denis-Courmont
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: pr… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: pr… Pekka Savola