IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT Trial Deployment Report

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 07 February 2012 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 2B12A21F8755 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:23:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.944, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4STT0yFQuFFU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr13.btconnect.com [213.123.20.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D923C21F8754 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:23:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-163-138-100.range86-163.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.163.138.100]) by c2bthomr13.btconnect.com with SMTP id GED91458; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:22:59 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <01bf01cce57a$1a0e0900$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
References: <CAD6AjGSRUdx32arseR26RzHNtMri8Vrif3dCQmuk7B52GmoHAw@mail.gmail.com><FBD9BBC7-A537-4ABE-ABEB-76098F1BB415@cisco.com><CAKD1Yr3Cq7kj5RLW_ktEEs12NPA_-yNeSzstPiKeYY7Sv1FqVQ@mail.gmail.com> <C4E5FF0A-9FBA-465C-AB4B-8A1A62BAAD56@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4F30FB83.000E, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.1.30.73017:17:7.586, ip=86.163.138.100, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, ECARD_KNOWN_DOMAINS, BODY_SIZE_1100_1199, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr13.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020C.4F30FB83.013F, ss=1, re=0.000, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: v6ops v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT Trial Deployment Report
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: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:23:06 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "james woodyatt" <jhw@apple.com>
To: "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: "v6ops v6ops WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 7:33 PM
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 23:53 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> >
> > As to which WG it belongs in, I don't know.
>
> I would say that if there is a WG where this belongs, then it would be BEHAVE
and not V6OPS.  I fail to see why this needs a working group to develop any
further.  Wouldn't the individual submission track be more appropriate?

When I have suggested an individual submission, I get told that it costs the
IETF more, that is that the necessary evils of publishing are amortised across a
wider spectrum of people when a WG is involved, so unless an AD is really
burning with desire to support an individual submission, then a WG is the way to
go.

V6OPS or BEHAVE?  I see the latter as more limited, more focussed in scope, so
would go for V6OPS.

Is it worth publishing as an RFC?  Yes, the IETF traditionally neglects
operators, favouring 'manufacturers' so this would help redress the balance.

Tom Petch

> --
> j h woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email