IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 04 March 2017 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.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 8D5311295A1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 12:12:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 7kCNIb7vuQaT for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 12:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (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 56C7E1295A7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 12:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j5so44404931pfb.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 12:12:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WX2XStkjenfiVm2LJgH6B3x3VgVM6AYb1YYJA0dmU9c=; b=n1EAwAiapY51oU4z6w6kJp6v5CACoTJoMAOMilrrkUF0gILAKfKECCn2oI66ZhZoN8 mxliWDyhOtVTtLdeIcuVZblTJE9d0c9jqhcBgZ570KlFWyZ4TNmpcdx8ngMrE5ouO9du LxJQg9zlc3UuqDFQgU5Sy0O2Aaf7FVa7PKV2Mcsl2gFaSBHxkIBu2ujciyCMW4smy8nF Ir31dlf49j6Be+s7V+LqeW6xikJ0ksO0XrO5fDF2LxleuDK9H/q9ocvY7m9if58U2JlB QamXce94ulAH198zv0C1dRRrntWz89TZvG90KUae6RQealC3kQhjiM9t8h6F476SpZUY ZTDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WX2XStkjenfiVm2LJgH6B3x3VgVM6AYb1YYJA0dmU9c=; b=aee69U9PucxpbJU+6L4wncJ0Ow7D9bq8n+OFtdo37yZICEqfElcsxC2T9jG8cZp4Vj GOXeZBjT10gm0ptm6rVmv4nWwgimLV4jw208DaaRpGYCmLk7oiPS5oiWqU77xI2tJcFK Fk9cS1akEDBrTXIqdiBBJTvgkVw6wY9LhrKRtcgQUewG61XJyQdICWt6qtHWEahaBV+R mwkUXWx8t59TDA9m53+8L3mP852191bOHc0SC2ngercynlCWRs70nI6WAGnYCndlQwAV 7dFKSZn4GoTZlay6EN6KFqo9PGnhUkEk1PjX72ddqe+LcHBbAQcSvErc+sMcsZ3vG6gu GSIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nhMWVzCqtOqpMu3HLSuYy13hx3vroNkmOFdbuXx+8jl1849A+1f3j0ijIZkIx2CQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.228.208 with SMTP id y16mr13931948pli.168.1488658341954; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 12:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (wsip-184-191-158-59.sd.sd.cox.net. [184.191.158.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v186sm30824625pgv.44.2017.03.04.12.12.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Mar 2017 12:12:20 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <12d65957-5261-b9ab-bf95-b7c95525c5c7@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 12:12:24 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CFCB0439-CF95-4A94-A569-6BF8C8B34D70@gmail.com>
References: <d1193890-0066-ad01-e521-0d9e8df065a8@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2OZfYVJLna38Vq3YmfGUrxOpLKAEpRKcEPDNAsiP2CiA@mail.gmail.com> <12d65957-5261-b9ab-bf95-b7c95525c5c7@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/SCfp397AYEh5BRbvsrINd7zyzxo>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
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: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 20:12:23 -0000

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> RFC 7849 is not a product of v6ops.
> 
> Seems so... although I remember there was some discussion here about it.

It was introduced in v6ops and discussed. It went through several revisions, including being adopted by the working group and then dropped due to dissent.

  - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
  - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
  - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile

I think the fairest thing to say is that there were three separate consensuses in the discussion: those that supported it (the authors, representing a number of 3GPP networks), those that didn't (a set of people who also worked in 3GPP), and those that wished we would talk about something else. The chairs (Joel and I) eventually suggested to the authors that they publish it in the Independent Stream, which they did.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email