Re: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-06: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 19:24 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 0B16E12D110 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 12:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 GKBjoUdZngUy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 12:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 2B18A12D8F1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 12:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.24] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4QJOYEs027744 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 May 2016 14:24:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.24]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:24:33 -0500
Message-ID: <969DEC5A-25DF-468D-BCE1-D61D44108768@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3=PcqbygBk1ptgbisBUj6cKRmeJqTOz6wC+0V_HGV=gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160503222244.8246.28466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr3=PcqbygBk1ptgbisBUj6cKRmeJqTOz6wC+0V_HGV=gw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PDbBOMyAHcHSmlsZAp_ZXNPT7RM>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, fred.baker@cisco.com, draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 19:24:38 -0000
It all looks good, thanks! Ben. On 25 May 2016, at 23:05, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Ben, > > we've addressed the comments in -07. > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > >> Section 7: I _think_ the point of this section is to suggest that we >> cannot reasonably estimate an upper limit. But if it says that >> explicitly, I missed it. (I fear a careless reader will walk away >> thinking "20" is a good limit) >> > > We've attempted to to address this by adding the following sentence at the > end of the section: > > Thus, in general is is not possible to estimate in advance > how many addresses are required. > > Better? > > Section 8: s/RECOMMENDED to not impose a hard limit/NOT RECOMMENDED to >> impose a hard limit/ >> > > Updated. > > Regards, > Lorenzo
- [v6ops] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-ho… Ben Campbell
- Re: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-v6op… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-v6op… Ben Campbell