[v6ops] draft-jjmb-v6ops-ietf-ipv6-only-incremental-00
Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Tue, 04 July 2017 01:20 UTC
Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.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 456AD12FEAA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hdyfNBnW4opu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x234.google.com (mail-yb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 965CC12F9A8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id f194so500732yba.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f/Y0g66pTZxez+Yazs5hirP4BjdYmnK5tVnWt/7Bsho=; b=p4K6kKHJTW7pog2/Xp7TKCHP8kHDqxDpsYYfS/8NYELI8Mg1zEAiCcXa8MNXBADEjj iuz96vVb8MiXQ5u9zPB8M8p6Gmwb+orlWwa5O4Xw1qCfvTif/wwITWVFHSEyAAclyuE7 o10weRMZUoIjdT7bUdtOuD2aJeGPQr+rwFrniErB0zgdQ15mAVswsx6uOrevoG+XJuma +IXGirgG0KST3stmh0KUgr2YdgCi7gSNUMjSPqWvunq65mSIRb52fB/9eQNk6ziTEtxe SIJ/coqzdLJ2GfihGS+3z9NGSS9CAzn33ilvoULGb75IoPUM4jG+NEnEXWWAakqB9Y/f uMHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f/Y0g66pTZxez+Yazs5hirP4BjdYmnK5tVnWt/7Bsho=; b=Gu+3cAEastwz3AuZx0USzc8SSCDItjDWZKzrvyHiju4jnAbfzhbPe3P3FXfYHzvnMP 20YsvG/1MenO7Do63OrErhe2yNDp/i3ijAUZMH1z7a1+36vaztziIYunvxWKbizNqiGP DowKHTlGRcUb3JXLfoAItDza4fICNu1PUgqPVM7RGPd5D91ef9Z/JG7afLWyVfSke+qI AxTYghwV0PSvrxqmEDv0BP5JqnzKhYSqg9Xp4Wfzne0Cwj4nv8Rwla7ZvLcHiMMbSePQ O6b+HP3MJRtcrQLrokvX9NTu1jS9EzDju85Ui+OZZ4BLCI5GkCFgf1vz5jJtpDZUM6pT /Ohw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwbmo3u6MEHtyIshtN+QV+wS94WFQNPDAxRILGdTXuteNgl8uhk pGKj79Gew5oFtIz44WmfGpYdCvZNnTmt
X-Received: by 10.37.180.18 with SMTP id n18mr30299691ybj.258.1499131236690; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 01:20:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQhFUed8C5EQuN=5gd9MKtRFoxxsAf3Wc6hD+Eb7NkL5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e6aa2d5b715055373b025"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3lsZNVb6fK5hF4AS3Bl_HkXASgk>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-jjmb-v6ops-ietf-ipv6-only-incremental-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Jul 2017 01:20:39 -0000
I read draft-jjmb-v6ops-ietf-ipv6-only-incremental-00 Looks good to me. It may be wise to note this is not a novel approach, the ietf is not on the bleeding edge here. https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/news/2015-01-31-ipv6-only-again/ The purpose of the document should also inlclude scope for not only being a bcp for the ietf but SDO conferences in general, maybe? 1 nit, i think s/AAAA/A "Applications that explicitly require IPv4 by only performing AAAA queries or restricting the type of underlying socket they use." Also, could we include support for Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-06? Finally, dnssec. I am sure at least 1 person would like to see a discussion of this. In anticipation, it may we wise to discuss this specifically by referencing where this discussion concluded in BEHAVE. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6147#section-6.2