IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 24 March 2012 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 DA16D21F86D9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Kh6mF0+9upg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63C721F86E0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1056; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1332587854; x=1333797454; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=C31NgGOVfniir15EN6C/vU42uB404aWSTkleXSWc1PQ=; b=HLZhE1xwa/GVXnHBEdclNTGqZR3slfLvXaGidpGhTYQuIQHtCXYfFMm6 iW4vEv/B/ApRyyUjlRS4CIAysCzdNP3LtVBRPvCTKMiL+60dpA8RtRPHY yv0WsleViAhYRZN+NIDWWUbxLHEE2+ZRdkoCg7IqS7cGqPtmR7rzHybiw c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,641,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="69242755"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2012 11:17:31 +0000
Received: from dhcp-5155.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-10-55-80-19.cisco.com [10.55.80.19]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2OBHThH016948; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:17:30 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by dhcp-5155.meeting.ietf.org (PGP Universal service); Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:17:31 +0100
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by dhcp-5155.meeting.ietf.org on Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:17:31 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30444B2E1@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:16:34 +0100
Message-Id: <3723BC44-931F-4852-88A4-716931770F85@cisco.com>
References: <6A0BFABB-225C-4D14-83F5-4398AF0E5CC3@cisco.com><A2297077-2804-407E-9971-5459F0E39806@townsley.net> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30444B2D2@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30444B2E1@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
To: Hemant Singh <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:17:36 -0000

On Mar 24, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> Further, isn’t draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 specifying technology or is there another document that covers the technology in more detail?  Technology documents need to move to a different WG. 

I'm reading your statement above, and in other email reading statements by someone using the same email address that go into some detail on the implications of binary flags in messages. I'm wondering where the line is drawn and why one draws it.

I have asked a selection of ADs and WG Chairs to weigh in on where the document should be discussed; if someone comes back to Joel and I with "this obviously belongs in <>", we'll send it there or send the relevant subset there. Personally, I think it falls within the charter of operational procedures used in IPv6 networks.

Where I draw the line on the normative reference that Ole and Mark would like is how well baked the proposed procedures are. We will determine that Monday.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email