IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 27 March 2021 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.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 124F63A1DF0; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 cOlKuyWbFJ4w; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x632.google.com (mail-pl1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (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 031433A1DEF; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x632.google.com with SMTP id v23so1889942ple.9; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=D+Ix5b/pxa5IeWAV15dNbu/3cedKwHBqZAl7DrSiQUA=; b=pRivi6BCvYylzbJ3oQUHLLSMRXsIiYk+N55UiB+BC+tRVNpWdFDWqbCMZdq6bFUirq tiVy3Nw+c9qDaaxly4p0Izwvlkj7LiY+9+0YEUsoTBq1wM4Zjazr0A6//WRlakHWp5AU AyvyNXURdQm6Q/hWoN8EwTWDt4qpof9ERhEo1ZMECEIuC1xz9zQVbTazGxyyqDTJeoCd 8SMkBwOvN1XEQkr0sY4pbg5jbYi1yI4aEpkZj49V0Y61SYuAU4ThD/b7YwUWqMwUSEjz zQg2dIEXcwsEZkBTAc/Ka17lKEjix8aRV5632U+CgjfN+LyRicwRuPwWw8VNUCw7ESvf f6bA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=D+Ix5b/pxa5IeWAV15dNbu/3cedKwHBqZAl7DrSiQUA=; b=h5t1BBTz/PT+f8tYPjaVeCOyRNozaCLQnQy/e0XFT9oSLyXBjalyTuQhseLDv8zH/W 1AfvQOAfbZF9xDEbrmHZGPc1Yb8zMrtwbZPRVbjB1SXjzzKNRozW4/JY2kToWHWU3o70 7tlTRYWYRzhhwW7VA5n+4BYjGk/0791m2BUNtxbPhcyCL5kXYLtZWQVGmrvjVrDY+g7u ZoWT28nZr8rfSRnmQa1QURgvq0Pq1KXGQKzKcadvjRWY13IItWqo3lf5ul06pgeuZ6j+ lmuDjYRaQXPHfq2IUAdd4x7ERJda/YVKRhu9J7qtmHDWqD1jKzjVRxXEhuxNtimtWUeX htzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pCyaXkTn+j1/apVJbma73Kxzw/8up8fF5w01jQ4H5Zo/mulf3 hJHCvPX7Qy9dniy2J/KX6+abFFRKnL8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvFizS5bgAf6zwgR/1m56/wOzGrDb/52otghUtdX1eacZUMltUFJeJa02R9UdtOKP8ZtJeYQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ead2:b029:e5:ba7a:a232 with SMTP id p18-20020a170902ead2b02900e5ba7aa232mr18665877pld.19.1616821090389; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ip72-205-75-17.sb.sd.cox.net. [72.205.75.17]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h15sm10815090pfo.20.2021.03.26.21.58.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E0757B36-8FFB-43A8-8F8B-A7F152F81156@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3549C87C-6AB2-45FC-9D37-EA83B728A4EF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.43\))
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 21:58:07 -0700
In-Reply-To: <18ea74665936408bb33f20630da95311@huawei.com>
Cc: "draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment@ietf.org" <draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment@ietf.org>, draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison@ietf.org
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <BL0PR05MB5316425C5650B5D2FE43DE4DAE6C9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <59B5C1F7-48E4-4915-BAAC-41D8ADA29E8F@gmail.com> <18ea74665936408bb33f20630da95311@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.43)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/EISy85UCmOJg97TK4dnPWASBW_0>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 04:58:17 -0000


> On Mar 19, 2021, at 1:39 AM, Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> For lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison, on behalf of the authors of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment I can say we are in favor of the WG adoption. Not only is it a good description of the transition technologies to IPv6, but it also constitutes a basis for our draft.

OK, let me put this to the working group. We asked about adoption of draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison once before (in January 2020), and got essentially no response. It has come up on the list twice since, in July and in November. The authors of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment would like to see it adopted. The two sets of authors are disjoint. I therefore have at least nine people that would like to see us adopt and publish it. What other folks have opinions, pro or con?

Along the same lines, are there opinions regarding the adoption of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment?

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison%22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment%22

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email