IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 April 2019 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@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 EA12D1207C8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
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 z4MJJejYnglz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (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 3979612013A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id w25so6250676pfi.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=n8M9ai0/hko1jImk1qdU0DViGBpJ/kezyNBkn5PdYbs=; b=QB4UfRtvq7NYONld5C6gBHl/qXEr2JSeHkx+YXzm7JDihQpVEGufXYKE4KZEZC9hDy zmuDChSMn5QbK4mvk94aeUlxwxjuuh4Az7BrNTXHH+4Kr2yo2nLAFWawek0+yd1vBXK/ fmcDF5Fx9FAiLflaO8mwEUpZh0OOk5ZRvG7Y4vQVC3XnRHfo7Ah7l5hRqFZohHCmDVTL ztjM5Eme7dEtVExD1odjMA4pnPQ3FPgEg312V7ttEBX2mRucL0FYJ9w6IqKYrdAlsaln ePlbL3rc4oCxv+WW0GGkGNtWq7GDdnlgh0br3ja0CTfptJFyRWGuWnHe7LgtW3iZK/ri bZtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=n8M9ai0/hko1jImk1qdU0DViGBpJ/kezyNBkn5PdYbs=; b=dF9zT/RyFeHmUX788NHSNlN2cy88uXnKossu5Uc65jvi1NtEnBslUZqxYMjCr20tu7 yjzEegHrcMrLrN9k4PRWj7dV8nFUNl+wi6oKOLbAS94QWP7HWV78uGZOuKji+bUqCyb8 sB3ypOjFNLmRkGTsenC32xdd/nfOx+GkmZ4jj8o6Ob/5trXaja9GHFIXuU8+TUe7pMxK 9kHLo1351X9v6PXte8dcNzA9BVQmS3KDS4orWLms8zNSHGZoR3igTZPJWCbAoLBZG2SL kexdX8spka/rdPw+12pJZjTiudCCte4ob3jgvnR7MRy2CM690f7FmO9K4SIA47v2AUr9 STdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV/gOCE5UmYifK/d9/h81pJ1rW7rN6USDpGnlZN3dFYsonR6FJ/ Bq4cIJahJTU/yEcue9EyXoIFCMb5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqypRsX5/eAKIMBZ3taiSqPkk6l8oOQNYXfJY5RylLQIQlfGWtfLG8oDS6Mdrl5W7y5AaAbFGg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:5009:: with SMTP id f9mr62755232pgo.390.1556589814648; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8801:d004:600:f026:9fcf:6237:4279? ([2600:8801:d004:600:f026:9fcf:6237:4279]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f5sm39079788pgo.75.2019.04.29.19.03.32 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E4DE670F-4B1E-4B97-A0B2-3D96141188CB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:03:31 -0700
References: <BYAPR05MB424560402C84199F4D131E43AE390@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB424560402C84199F4D131E43AE390@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-Id: <FE63840C-96F8-4EC6-BF1F-1182530D6F2B@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5OZEc11viTj18nNE05xg8GOXtLI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 30 Apr 2019 02:03:37 -0000

At least part of the question is that the authors would like this to be a working group draft. I'm interested to know what the working group thinks of it. It started out as an essentially academic paper, and would update or obsolete RFC 6180.

> On Apr 29, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Each week between now and IETF 105, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it.
> 
> This week, please review and comment on draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison.
> 
>                                                             Fred and Ron
> 
> Non-Juniper
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email