IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 A95F31A0711 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] 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 enjKy2bbFJ1o for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C03F1A0213 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079CD1B8062 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AE519005C; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.146.119] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:16 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <0901D65B-EA79-4E20-987D-9BA01CEDDAB3@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:42:14 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B3942C2F-C08E-42F2-9038-92C3C63E0023@nominum.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <534BFA08.3030404@foobar.org> <49EA8AC9-D5C5-4FE5-9A10-0CD574782F0F@nominum.com> <534C07FC.8000907@foobar.org> <F08AF14D-22C6-4F4C-9388-670EB4CD8453@nominum.com> <F2A0EC2F-6B41-4560-88BA-CEBF3E921B61@delong.com> <CAEmG1=oK8iHAms2_uVBsCtpCG7xBdhRfh9QQrd+JXUXgjBPqPA@mail.gmail.com> <0901D65B-EA79-4E20-987D-9BA01CEDDAB3@delong.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/L1EXYuTuG1UKVLauJajGg1mRNEw
Cc: 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: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:42:20 -0000

On Apr 14, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Seems to me that the same potential for abuse exists with either situation.

This is true, and the remedy exists as well.  It's worth pointing out that "please review" doesn't mean "please redesign this."   It means "please point out technical flaws that you see."   None of what you or Nick has said sound like technical flaws to me—they sound like "I would prefer to do it this other way."

The working group considered doing it that other way and decided that on the balance, the way it's written now is better.   So unless there is some strong technical reason why it _shouldn't_ be done the way the working group has proposed, there's no basis for making a change.   It's issues like that that we are looking for in a v6ops review.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email