IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gábor Lencse <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Fri, 03 May 2019 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 3119F1200E5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2019 02:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 mTx9ScYPCRrf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2019 02:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5632512006D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2019 02:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.11.4] (pl22370.ag1212.nttpc.ne.jp [1.33.49.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x439QK6h048760 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2019 11:26:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host pl22370.ag1212.nttpc.ne.jp [1.33.49.98] claimed to be [192.168.11.4]
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <BYAPR05MB424560402C84199F4D131E43AE390@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <FE63840C-96F8-4EC6-BF1F-1182530D6F2B@gmail.com>
From: Gábor Lencse <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <77004251-b478-696d-8e7b-a1f460a88c9e@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 18:26:29 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FE63840C-96F8-4EC6-BF1F-1182530D6F2B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9085BB3FA3679070FAB61536"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=1.33.49.98; helo=[192.168.11.4]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/68NiOOz9imh9Osc8HT9OzMa6n_k>
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: Fri, 03 May 2019 09:26:35 -0000

Dear v6ops Members,

Yes, as Fread wrote, we would like our draft be adopted by the WG.

IMHO, RFC 6180 covers a much wider topic than our I-D, thus I recommend 
that our I-D should only update it (and not obsolete it).

It seemed to me from the minutes ( 
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/minutes?item=minutes-104-v6ops-00.html ) 
that several people considered our draft useful.

Please, react now: Do you consider it useful and support its adoption as 
a WG item?

What do you think is missing from it? Which direction should we go?

Are there any questionable statements? Anything, which is biased?

Best regards,

Gábor


On 4/30/2019 11:03, Fred Baker wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email