IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-04.txt

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D2B1B3622 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:36:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 hyANmXkkNpVK for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:36:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 978581A8951 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:36:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDR39235; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 02:36:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 02:36:11 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.20]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:36:06 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>, V6OPS Working Group <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP8bkSnl4Ta4Q1h0SqUF2rOiPn2p6O8tNVgAAOWlA=
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 02:36:06 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C231A658@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20141027073843.13643.64057.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8D8A25B4-2E47-4524-9F76-11A0C28DDD39@nestlabs.com> <8AACD6C0-7B3D-44B0-AEF4-1880A5A63FBD@nestlabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <8AACD6C0-7B3D-44B0-AEF4-1880A5A63FBD@nestlabs.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.194.185.79]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C231A658nkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.563AC09D.009E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.20, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 475fc74399a30cb070ee79c983c442be
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/56KMQJkOMfk2CTmmEOh_jtmS_SE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-04.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 02:36:18 -0000

Hi James,

Thanks for raising this issue.

This draft originally intended to be BCP, but it was changed to Informational later, according to WG’s consensus at that time.
The BCP category in current draft should be editorial issue, I’ll fix it in the next version, as well as rephrasing the RFC2119 words.

Best regards,
Bing

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Woodyatt
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:41 AM
To: V6OPS Working Group
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-04.txt

Everyone—

This draft A) uses normative requirements language with RFC 2119 keywords and B) calls for publication in the Informational category. Is the document really intended for the Best Current Practice (BCP) category? If not, could we please either remove the citation of RFC 2119 and all the usage of upper case keywords, or insert an explanation for why the document uses normative requirements language despite being an Informational category document?


—james

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email