Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 27 January 2015 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 2B6E21A8A41 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:05:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 cs_4TtfxQQVi for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs-m.tc.umn.edu (vs-m.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2468D1A8A50 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by vs-m.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:05:01 -0600 (CST)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hn18so6929890igb.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:05:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:mime-version :to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0FsOqt9iXTFP8iAeTppUO20SYw1RwBnhwJmZ0h+Y7+8=; b=CIG38mb1ExflOiKAnhilzNkVzqDfox9qcaIyuI4wsm4GmT9vVAD0DlrsZRRHDtJLEX 9ARI/HePv0+tgQan7BBOOOBzIz3DL+nfSNzn6SnJutevu2gxor126s9VAYVaoqD+AEk9 KynN3WxaO8hwxy2X0GG9ZRbKP5Tgm0zJNfYuA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0FsOqt9iXTFP8iAeTppUO20SYw1RwBnhwJmZ0h+Y7+8=; b=Sy2gpTRusSX5osXQTu1TeGAtfhG/nWPs5VV6heLIkNwKLAkfNdF9pmskyVrIC8cb1u N6XBO0n6iLh0cLzDnxLzxgbYKCKDDZTMIsmj2ax/3SxWpzEwxF1z3XWoi1FeyNuhoPOL euWbXm3QJ4Ec3C5gAwUy9hb6xDv2b0WwGHQsXeugrx99LkWjz6KtAHgkEoJgVdIyF1tA 8cLzql01tGraNfkufZjc0JBYE9/qXoTN5ar2t86/8eVQG4yBis+9nNc0mZv6RxQhbA21 73wRAwCLPfqolMXrwz+3H7feR7WbZ0x/L19irX9ONjA33oGauhon2CzvVXVnZ+tnEGjB y/DA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8gylFIQb43Dt83EL+YdGlHFGA9pKoex9QW7yEbtF+g2w0uV6OWyO284HXsguUooZ709kJeq4DAKUXaZ+kaTE1A59dsNJpA/3XrbXaP4F982h0LeMAQShZup/Wtc415F5xpvpo
X-Received: by 10.107.15.36 with SMTP id x36mr652388ioi.75.1422389100634; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:05:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.107.15.36 with SMTP id x36mr652374ioi.75.1422389100473; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from x-134-84-88-41.nts.umn.edu ([2607:ea00:101:2001:e9a3:c07b:5cc7:44d8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l29sm1251613iod.31.2015.01.27.12.04.58 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54C7EF68.8070804@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:04:56 -0600
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <54BEB741.8060709@gmail.com> <248188907.4210717.1421800222689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws106136.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAKD1Yr1Ec7=g5VNZtbBw6Tutr2oi-1_SmcEJu_JCDKUvSGsAUA@mail.gmail.com> <54C6DD1D.2030000@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Vi0Ze9Ui_Nqs6V90wX4mW2oKQE4nTnk7aC2k=WaN-Dg@mail.gmail.com> <54C6E63D.3090805@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54C6E63D.3090805@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DZ2hSXk2mvEeKkS5qEkVbfGRrNk>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
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: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:05:07 -0000

On 1/26/15 19:13 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 27/01/2015 13:43, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, reviewing the emails I've archived, I see mild support for
>>> formally obsoleting it and no strong opposition.
>>>
>> I suppose my question was really only procedural: *can* we even obsolete an
>> individual submission? It's not a document based on IETF consensus, so if
>> IETF consensus was not necessary to publish it, then how can IETF consensus
>> be sufficient to obsolete it?
>
> Terminology alert: it's an *independent* submission, not an *individual*
> submission (the latter is an IETF stream draft but with no associated WG).
>
> So, your question is valid. I suggest we leave it as "obsoletes" for now
> and let somebody with a higher IETF pay grade decide. Next time I bump
> into the Independent Series Editor (which will be later this week
> in Rotorua NZ, as it happens) I will ask if there's a precedent.

I think a metadata link obsoleting 6732 is appropriate either way.

6to4-PMT is basically a special case anycast relay and return relay 
bolted together and to a 66 prefix translator.  So, would a 6to4-PMT 
version of the relay operator recommendation be applicable.

   Current operators of a 6to4-PMT relay SHOULD review the information
   in the present document, and then consider carefully whether the
   6to4-PMT relay can be discontinued as traffic diminishes.

Or, maybe better yet consolidate the three different relay operator 
recommendations into a generic and unified 6to4 relay recommendation for 
all relay type, like;

Current operators of all 6to4 relays (anycast using 192.88.99.1, return 
using 2002::/16 , or 6to4-PMT) SHOULD review the information in 
[RFC6343] and the present document, and then consider carefully whether 
the 6to4 relay can be discontinued as traffic diminishes.

The further discussion of 6to4-PMT got me thinking.

Thanks.
-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================