IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt

Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> Tue, 21 February 2017 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.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 2B9C3129BC3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 06:00:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, 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 HS00PbjTMjvY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 06:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 255DE129BB5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 06:00:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.162] ([62.225.30.138]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LslCb-1cDxkn1k0v-012IWW; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 15:00:16 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <7D4321A8-BC93-4C40-B61C-193959662246@consulintel.es>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 15:00:15 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E28D1F7-B250-482A-AB41-B76265CA19B5@gmx.com>
References: <148763027040.25952.5914924936449771028.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <692043A0-04F2-46EA-84D2-D4964E925C6B@consulintel.es> <B32D8BA9-0C0D-4576-9B7A-C08044A7433A@ripe.net> <CAAedzxpJB+rfDzm8H0ZpoYQymeqSjw1hdZnjFSNU24pyXoM+pA@mail.gmail.com> <7D4321A8-BC93-4C40-B61C-193959662246@consulintel.es>
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:UlEAgReI8M7vpDL/dY+lmQ4phfGOUHy9hGbgRpmg2hlzFm7cuH9 Besg8McokrW8uWR/r7tLV/HzDuMREPMQf9l22hLYnRXCjaDKK60ooPZlOJOROCj3kO1x5Kj nDsfPPIOwjUai4jSmW9FJ/10Da25Hfr7tPDRqTO2sztbys2smJNpaLCJR5c6Tf8g1CruNJT yd/xRfoFpcWzzWgwMjDxw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:Bvdt50OGylQ=:84FF29P2Br55HwU72i/Djv W1E/0tYNcEbPUzItTYI9f1fhQP5pKAiMFbDjNipFzP9RFIWL8y3+7zAYQlHr9nyUbidvNDc6V o7w70QaNQC9avU9dN9CtYefNP9/psPwdRqBv5Fvq4m3GYUIR0pMV1+teQ9sXPnAX1l2lywZQI IGGw3ZFJxgJ6A/63ga7U6I/HZ+ymwHhgP/AEq0gIOVswP3ipcs+PT8ug4wZ4uhmefKcJ4mqj9 5PWGOPys/Fr+GYW8BBXN2lEWx2tQr7WXxceOk7c5W8TDWt8ZXykboxpyqMjGwG2M+IWnDRbxI paeGLGj5AgJ86vAns9J1OLv2MIZnsIV5oQoy+SgZzrvvaWz/wVH8K1iEDFY4D21mmzMOmMwcG xe1L4suYqmQVqdWZ6EBr0+X/CIMse6i/ZfkO5SN8Gv7J0QtxgadD5ln5GBS5ZXnizcbLj03p5 ywBtUWEg3m81aPVzBPs90eP7S0SuTkeQiPWFqUux+w2xW0RecFXcp1rrN/6A2tEib9Gkzv+9b bxC9fEgAW+jB+uE097tbATI9tMAhD6tI+PPVL/uJzz/EdGbu4/DjCNkpiTXzmRc79ooo9Crt9 9TIhgoyCdD7D9/1iJ3+9nKgnKPHXW1+kax2sriIpBqr6M1QScJI9mrkHHjNh8Ws8DGy3YceuV wgTHWQxZZl+d4MT49ZqKz2nB4Vtcth1bgpv7EPtlyGbkdmJO+EC9eGLdDJAqWaD2ei5y2oveK cuexxhqccvVzm8al5JdWdy5RyXk0cYU8E4x1OEfypt4r/hzufwpJ5qAdNqI9m2Fww4t0gMYIX T27FwSz
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/CYFhiRMJpdD37GqdQ_3mWRysK6A>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 21 Feb 2017 14:00:32 -0000

Hi Jordi,

> 
> What do you think about moving the 464XLAT, MAP, to MUST ?


[if - RFC7084 already has MUST requirements for 6RD and DSLite and as they are already widely implemented would like them to stay as MUST. However, I would prefer not to see any more mandatory transition mechanisms added in this document.

I think it’s more useful to construct the requirements for any of the newer (post RFC7084) transition mechanisms, as ‘MAY implement the mechanism - if implemented MUST support a, b, c'. When specifying requirements for a CPE, I can just point to the particular section relevant to the mechanism deployed in my network.

Regards,
Ian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email