IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Prep for v6ops IETF 84 agenda

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 29 June 2012 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 6450321F8661 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.077
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.922, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0qNuEH+zS-Od for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5080221F8657 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5TJghCl029240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FEE0533.1060203@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:42:43 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <8D73E1D6-A968-4397-A843-FE073197B7F1@cisco.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D376EDA9D@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <C11C2C67-04A6-40DB-888B-3349CB82EB93@cisco.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D376EDF64@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D376EDF64@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Prep for v6ops IETF 84 agenda
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:43:22 -0000

On 6/29/2012 9:14 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Hi Fred,
...
>>> OK Fred; I'll bite. Why are you listing 'draft-generic-v6ops-tunmtu'
>>> as "#out of charter"?
>>
>> Because changes to section 4.5 of RFC 2460 ("a source node may divide the
>> packet...") is a change to RFC 2460, and should be discussed by the folks
>> maintaining RFC 2460.
>
> OK, I think I get your meaning now. You are concerned
> that the draft in its current form seems to call for
> an update to RFC2460 - right?
>
> I'd like to propose a second alternative. Rather than
> taking this over to 6man, my draft could be revised to
> become a problem statement only rather than a functional
> specification. Then, the fact that "(only) a source node
> may divide the packet" becomes a problem to be addressed
> in a different document - and not something to be defied
> by this document.

I was expecting a differrent approach:

	a) revise this doc to focus on ops issues that
	don't require any standards changes

	b) propose the problem of IPv6 downstream refragmentation
	in a separate doc in a different WG

Even a problem statement for (b) would need to be handled in a non-ops 
WG, AFAICT.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email