IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Mon, 30 January 2012 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 8760B21F850D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:59:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 OxMDBc5ZY4Zk for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55C121F84F2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:59:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1327953542!13136646!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 21751 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2012 19:59:03 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-4.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jan 2012 19:59:03 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0UJvVRp007751; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:57:31 -0500
Received: from sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (sflint03.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.230]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0UJvQZ0007644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:57:27 -0500
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com (gaalpa1msghub9e.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.36.91]) by sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:58:41 -0500
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.6.206]) by GAALPA1MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:58:41 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
Thread-Index: AQHM34Zty/cRV1j9DUSbChwVr26jwZYlUQmQ
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:58:40 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611025B49@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: Your message of Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:51:52 PST. <85BE2EBF-C8AC-45E1-BF93-1E3066AD3172@apple.com> <201201301936.q0UJaEft000156@givry.fdupont.fr>
In-Reply-To: <201201301936.q0UJaEft000156@givry.fdupont.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.169.165]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-RSA-Action: allow
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Ole Troan (otroan)" <otroan@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:59:05 -0000

To come at this from a procedural angle, then...

With the advent of the homenet WG, I thought we agreed that we would not make any attempt to address new additional LAN technology recommendations in a 6204bis document. We said 6204bis would only try to deal with WAN-side transition technologies, and other "fix existing 6204 recommendations, because now we know better" changes.

Recommending PCP as a LAN technology is, IMO, a homenet issue. It has no place in 6204bis.

PCP as a WAN technology that some want to see used in conjunction with IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms that put an IPv4 CGN in the access network, is, IMO, a reasonable addition to 6204bis (as a SHOULD, which I think is what proposed verbiage has). 

Barbara

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Francis Dupont
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:36 PM
> To: james woodyatt
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; pcp@ietf.org; Ole Troan (otroan); draft-ietf-v6ops-
> 6204bis@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
> > > UPnP IGD v2 does the job, it was just published after the PCP
> > > effort beginning.
> >
> >  Was it published under terms that permit IETF to cite it in a
> >  standards track document as a normative requirement?  This has, in
> >  the past, been a problem with UPnP IGDv1.
> 
> => I am not a lawyer so I can't say... but the text of the standard
> is freely available (in all meanings of the word 'free') so at least
> one can make its own opinion.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email