Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:59 AM, tsavo.stds@gmail.com
<tsavo.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say I am really interested on this as well, as during BIH-work we were explicitly forbidden to define how BIH would work if destination has an A record (instead of only AAAA).
>
> E.g. we could not write that if there is A record, it is passed as is to application and following IPv4 packet then translated to Ipv6....
>
> I understand that times change, but this change is quite fast (document saying not allowed in RFC editor queue while new document saying allowed adopted as wg document..).
>

I see no reason to pause progress towards enabling proven
functionality and leveraging existing standards and working code for
the purpose of posterity

> Maybe this document should state that described approach still is not recommended.
>

That would be quite unfortunate.

I made the case for double translation with BIH almost a year ago

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09480.html

> Or IETF(IESG) should make their mind:)
>

Either that or we deliver the solutions to customers without them.  My
hope is that reality and the IETF specs do not part ways, yet again.

CB

> Teemu
>
> Lähetetty Nokia-puhelimestani
> ---- alkuperäinen viesti ----
> Lähett.: Satoru Matsushima
> Lähet.:  20.02.2012, 09:11
> V.ottaja: v6ops WG
> Kopio: Russell Housley
> Aihe: Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.
>
>
> On 2012/02/20, at 4:23, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-20 05:37, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> So, when I read  464xlat what I see is a stack of existing RFCs used in
>>> a specific fashion which the draft describes. I don't see any new
>>> standards work.
>>
>> fwiw I agree with that. I think v6ops is the appropriate venue
>> for descriptions of how to knit existing protocol specs together
>> in operational scenarios.
>>
>> I do object slightly to the way draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat uses
>> the word "architecture". It's an operational scenario, not an
>> architecture, IMHO.
>>
>
> I can see a strong statement that double protocol translation is an architecture which is not recommended by the IETF.
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-09)
>
> I'd like to hear from chairs that does v6ops consent to be opposed to that statement.
>
> cheers,
> --satoru
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops