IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 A9C3D1A01AC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] 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 SuS6Klk3Kex6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9D71A019B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6811B803F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37E619005C; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.146.119] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:21 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <70739713-281A-41E6-93ED-5EE1BC4B7FAB@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:51:19 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B574C5CF-3270-41C4-9859-3D56569D2A48@nominum.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <20140415083615.GB43641@Space.Net> <534D3672.3060702@viagenie.ca> <3446106.k0lm12lQ8b@linne> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161034220.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2D+ZMi-UctuvrMzyqoHqgBy5O26GODT=bRwq0PsvLgLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161053110.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1WaMBx-0000BSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E772899C-8505-4436-8594-380799F91BA0@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2KFOi_hW3CCSbcT-uPQSwsUyE06cY3r8=CuunSbnz_xw@mail.gmail.com> <D701ADC0-EA9F-48DD-933F-9E02ACF3EBD4@nominum.com> <534EAB83.1070906@foobar.org> <70739713-281A-41E6-93ED-5EE1BC4B7FAB@nominum.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/9fGyagGdUqkPER3ovkZDrOXQgAI
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <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, 16 Apr 2014 16:51:25 -0000

On Apr 16, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> So unless you are saying that there was a process failure here, the issue is effectively settled.

BTW, this does _not_ mean that it can't be reopened.   It just means that the presumption is that it won't be.

There is actually a precedent for something like this in IETF history: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2563

RFC 2563 is not widely implemented (not at all implemented, actually, as far as I know).   I think this is actually the strongest argument against the current effort: if nobody implements it in any shipping stacks, what's the point?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email