IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Wed, 30 April 2014 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 6E61B1A8885 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 LnDzsJWIG8iU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [IPv6:2607:f2f8:ab14::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD251A88A2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.39] (rrcs-67-53-121-163.west.biz.rr.com [67.53.121.163]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48C6522B20; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:01:25 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dougbarton.us; t=1398884485; bh=a99+ZbtgYDmtgUVqt6T83RTqTQ3qCgul2ddSLklYPxg=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=JzRlQdcgBbMYl5hP5fhG73rucvNyfDuQIeVdC9F3Ye9L+bg6Z9OT5DUnd8YnDCP5a sRyoPnB5kwN7ahIWv16zrBQzVG83/Qfu3qJDBfCR+23uKNmnUnGSMeUSeQulIY5uBL XMvC3TJpWfjVJakzYkcVEvmKmuean4XV3Iyeppbs=
Message-ID: <53614884.1010000@dougbarton.us>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:24 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <534BFA08.3030404@foobar.org> <49EA8AC9-D5C5-4FE5-9A10-0CD574782F0F@nominum.com> <534C07FC.8000907@foobar.org> <F08AF14D-22C6-4F4C-9388-670EB4CD8453@nominum.com> <F2A0EC2F-6B41-4560-88BA-CEBF3E921B61@delong.com> <CAEmG1=oK8iHAms2_uVBsCtpCG7xBdhRfh9QQrd+JXUXgjBPqPA@mail.gmail.com> <0901D65B-EA79-4E20-987D-9BA01CEDDAB3@delong.com> <B3942C2F-C08E-42F2-9038-92C3C63E0023@nominum.com> <5360B37B.8010908@dougbarton.us> <F350FDDA-645B-42B3-90EB-70D8852E8435@nominum.com> <5361387A.5070805@dougbarton.us> <B9330EEC-4B3C-42FE-BF28-B65F880036A5@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <B9330EEC-4B3C-42FE-BF28-B65F880036A5@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.7a1pre
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5RxkLB1OlqhH5_uPX0sYSPJmvMc
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:01:45 -0000

On 04/30/2014 11:31 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you would say that, or why you would snip one
>> phrase out of my entire e-mail to respond to and ignore all of the
>> other arguments I made about why this draft is a bad idea.
>
> The less said on this long, repetitive thread, the better.   The
> particular point I quoted was refuted early on and is utterly absurd.

I know that is your position. I, and others, disagree.

> Your other points have been addressed.   Please, can we stop talking
> about this and wait for the next version to be published?

Apparently my points have not been addressed adequately if another 
version of the draft is being considered. (And no, that's not a troll 
either.)

Doug

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email