IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Re: CFA for RFC7050 depreference draft

Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com> Fri, 27 December 2024 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <xipengxiao@huawei.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 B055EC14F602 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:26:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fEaO3tM8aWfv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37A3FC14F5EF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YK75Y37c0z6K5X3; Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:22:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500003.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.28]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F133140B2F; Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:26:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.22) by frapeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 27 Dec 2024 02:26:25 +0100
Received: from frapeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.22]) by frapeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.22]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Fri, 27 Dec 2024 02:26:24 +0100
From: Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
To: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] CFA for RFC7050 depreference draft
Thread-Index: AQHbVVCsN5uy5K7tN0WyESLyVRlROLL5Tzag
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 01:26:24 +0000
Message-ID: <91504348637a4889bb7ed6ef87ca98c0@huawei.com>
References: <CACMsEX9q4w=2HJM_q6MAWvyonYm1m_=dXTiUxpEyD4nPAxdhEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACMsEX9q4w=2HJM_q6MAWvyonYm1m_=dXTiUxpEyD4nPAxdhEg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.48.39.13]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_91504348637a4889bb7ed6ef87ca98c0huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: ZJUKBLPM3DTWRCCENPBARDIVRSIVTTZW
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZJUKBLPM3DTWRCCENPBARDIVRSIVTTZW
X-MailFrom: xipengxiao@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: CFA for RFC7050 depreference draft
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KnSWGPUazg7uySARa3QVNg62GyU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

There are plenty of support for adoption.  Although there is a bit of doubt from Nick H., Nick didn’t express objection.  The doubt can be discussed and clarified later.  Therefore, I’ve changed the draft status to “Adopted by a WG”.  Thanks to all those people who reviewed and commented on the draft.

In favor of adoption:

  *   Ted Lemon: The document is too long for what it does, IMHO, but it’s the right idea and we can work on the length after adoption.

·        Daryll Swer

  *   Chris Cummings: Using PREF64 seems like the right route going forward, and anything we can do to encourage that seems like a win.
  *   Jeremy Duncan
  *   David Farmer: While I support adoption, I think section 5.1 of RFC 8781 and this draft’s recommendation in section 4.2 need reconciliation.
  *   Tom Costello: it would be great to see more vendors implementing support or RFC8781, this draft clearly contributes to that goal.
  *   Tim Chown
  *   Tim Wicinski
  *   Lorenzo Colitti: We should try to get RFC 8781 into the next revision of the 3GPP requirements
In doubt:

  *   Nick Heatley: My concern is that in this thread, there is interchange of “discouraging” and “deprecating”. Which is it?
     *   Nick Buraglio and Brian Carpenter responded
Thanks,

XiPeng

From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2024 4:38 PM
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] CFA for RFC7050 depreference draft

Call for Adoption: draft-buraglio-deprecate7050 ended yesterday. I believe we have enough support for adoption. There is some discussion on how it may affect mobile networks, but I did not read that as opposition, more just "we need to clarify where appropriate", and the majority of the responses were in favor of adoption.
Could someone double check me and close the call?

nb

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status