IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 D522B1A01F2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 r2hx5mcOCZ2v for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FB91A022A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #76) id m1WaTAV-0000BxC; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:58:39 +0200
Message-Id: <m1WaTAV-0000BxC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:42:18 -0500 ." <70739713-281A-41E6-93ED-5EE1BC4B7FAB@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:58:33 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/CsuFVYmIOZBJ5vLxO-seZgIVpzg
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 16:58:54 -0000

In your letter dated Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:42:18 -0500 you wrote:
>So unless you are saying that there was a process failure here, the issue is eff
>ectively settled.

I really love the false modesty in Section 4.1:
"The authors conclude that a DHCPv6 option is clearly necessary,
whereas it is not as clear for a DHCPv4 option.  More feedback on
this topic would be appreciated."

Well, we can safely assume that the authors (at least some of them) got their
feedback. It's up to them to decide what to do.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email