IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Fri, 12 August 2011 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 F2DD121F8A23 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 ocmuHGLLbLXy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D80721F89BE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7CE8Vt9028647 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:08:31 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk p7CE8Vt9028647
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1313158111; bh=fBUxugYBty2/oVpWZVIF+bnpj2g=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=3eUuLoxt3ZTxqp6TiltP+g90tXsqeKz/ie6AQweM/Jm5yenZ4isSLFXe5GRpAM1Yk 8vBqucoeWonqUV+E3C7XVBYrUoOzhN+jA2EipTfy+1l+Yv8mx0HuhzvNOKirhGBXG2 ooQp4Y0XVAnWX8jannuUngBGnR1Ch7FrhMQn43DY=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id n7BF8V03661055909z ret-id none; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:08:31 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f105:2022:c8dd:e23a:f927] ([IPv6:2001:630:d0:f105:2022:c8dd:e23a:f927]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7CE8S5F015901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:08:28 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <m1QrsFy-0001iTC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:08:28 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|41af0fbd5d26c5cf14f83a2830d86533n7BF8V03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|B21DE8F1-86D3-4692-9501-7582B38662E3@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <m1Qrqt5-0001iqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <68862319-4CB9-46C7-91D0-9A0B9B142791@network-heretics.com> <m1QrsFy-0001iTC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <B21DE8F1-86D3-4692-9501-7582B38662E3@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: IPv6 Operations Working Group <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n7BF8V036610559000; tid=n7BF8V03661055909z; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p7CE8Vt9028647
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update
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, 12 Aug 2011 14:07:57 -0000

3484-bis should be being last called.   I'll pop Brian and Bob a mail.   The only slight question mark on it was a privacy bit indicator, but that can be resolved in WGLC.

Tim

On 12 Aug 2011, at 14:58, Philip Homburg wrote:

> In your letter dated Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:34:59 -0400 you wrote:
>>> so that text should at least refer to 3484bis)
>> 
>> My impression from what I heard in Quebec City is that 3484-revise might =
>> still take a while to get through the 6man WG, and it seems that many =
>> people want an RFC that "updates" 6to4 to be issued as quickly as =
>> possible.  If 3484-revise were approved before -update is submitted, I =
>> agree that an explicit reference to 3484bis in -update would be =
>> appropriate.=20
> 
> I don't think a non-normative reference to RFC3484-revise would hurt.
> 
> It is directed at different products/parts of products anyhow. Keeping 
> 6to4 off by default applies to routers implementing 6to4 functionality.
> (And in theory also hosts with 6to4 functionality).
> 
> RFC3484-revise has to be implemented by each an every host even if the host
> doesn't do anything with 6to4 because a local router may provide 6to4 to
> the host.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email