IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 05 March 2017 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 68696129415 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:57:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 wKdEwZyq3-Mo for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22c.google.com (mail-pg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22c]) (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 F1E791294B5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id b129so55635491pgc.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 18:57:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lpHXczYpblzVL6W3QtpVQpQoBMRomJ8z6zSKATZOULs=; b=aAPAE5/2Cj5FgjbJW5R0g8H6ZZWd8s8seOw4RC+va1TZ5lirLq+ScCmIdiTEVN700i iZ72wxyURWWtB5NpQkf3PtFPDIVN7C0su2+KQc34ft4apwRCO+NboBJqiJiorHPtZZjq Ssx2NX5G6ekpCN5nphCkcSyDNWhVEHgZ/Bw1J9H5vwQyDbDqjorgTP0oYrH7/eohoul2 OEaCDcfyWTVbSupBWuPQkNY1QyHeE7YnZ1G6xeqc9gCU8LaLo3NHDw5FK1UtA3plRoHO e4v3IdWV10vK9ohbnsYWVEAXi0NRHOci13V88qoLlbHJ6CHjnLWY2RtIrkIC/kctTRIf vfwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lpHXczYpblzVL6W3QtpVQpQoBMRomJ8z6zSKATZOULs=; b=Zy1W3o7gzX4N4oJtkHmV/Y1msB/UnQNJsqCk4fpJBfIlKPqJS5M5Pxz7115cz+vKr+ YaWqGFy5Ma4kji/Hi1DSaN3dE+QCqyuL9ZQG7HRo/V6WRU1qEYplXo0Dd3LxbkEYyeC+ XhIenoczqkdMdJzXLv+qkS24j9OH2/QSSLwLIMEBMZpz58ziEV5OEhz19bqaXciaUBhc 0jjrffxRLtKmj0fpGtWyei0wor57nzfG73DW0Ly2MgAZvTbv9Wa+npWgkr/fa8EkkVJa MQeYRWxCUVgxlJUyVYjSSpQs2xMrLCHEQtR3JkHKIrDMiKlizHQ1ILUiUUw1UW0lf/19 oE8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39na+ZPe6oUkJyeNeT5mWsoGJaIlF0JHmF2TJuMMtgw5jrRqYJWyEJ/OQyAms/yWhw==
X-Received: by 10.84.214.129 with SMTP id j1mr15916150pli.23.1488682623572; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 18:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7204:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7204:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z26sm384442pgc.57.2017.03.04.18.57.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Mar 2017 18:57:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <d1193890-0066-ad01-e521-0d9e8df065a8@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2OZfYVJLna38Vq3YmfGUrxOpLKAEpRKcEPDNAsiP2CiA@mail.gmail.com> <12d65957-5261-b9ab-bf95-b7c95525c5c7@gmail.com> <CFCB0439-CF95-4A94-A569-6BF8C8B34D70@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <c2ec7879-dc7f-bde2-a4e0-8ad5f7705c49@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 15:57:00 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CFCB0439-CF95-4A94-A569-6BF8C8B34D70@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4K_FBPVt7m69w5zbUdjApkvdPJU>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:57:05 -0000

On 05/03/2017 09:12, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> RFC 7849 is not a product of v6ops.
>>
>> Seems so... although I remember there was some discussion here about it.
> 
> It was introduced in v6ops and discussed. It went through several revisions, including being adopted by the working group and then dropped due to dissent.
> 
>   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
>   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
>   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
> 
> I think the fairest thing to say is that there were three separate consensuses in the discussion: those that supported it (the authors, representing a number of 3GPP networks), those that didn't (a set of people who also worked in 3GPP), and those that wished we would talk about something else. The chairs (Joel and I) eventually suggested to the authors that they publish it in the Independent Stream, which they did.

So why are we even discussing a document whose boilerplate says things like

  "The consensus-based IETF description of IPv6 functionality for
   cellular hosts is described in RFC 7066.
   ...
   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard..."

?

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email