IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.

Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> Sun, 19 February 2012 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.kuarsingh@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 335E221F8504 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Tj04rfFaytX3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AEC21F84D9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so8257143iag.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com designates 10.50.15.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.50.15.234;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com designates 10.50.15.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.50.15.234]) by 10.50.15.234 with SMTP id a10mr8944567igd.29.1329687908477 (num_hops = 1); Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tFS8q3abP/GTRSubsY32HwDtdm2uLPC4BVPSTdszJso=; b=O8fcY6Rb2NOqoMfdB0EMlpRQ7t6v4h3v/S5Y7u6fff5b4urTtiKhDdqo0GY34V+YMp x7wARhIiW+iZNBvefPnZhnZ/XrQ6J2fF9Bg+J1rUVgcf8/dGcCDCY8ikuX4sf79C32Rn KAcUNme9jgtx+vRyAwCFiCWG1Z0schsLT1VPg=
Received: by 10.50.15.234 with SMTP id a10mr7268759igd.29.1329687908408; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([74.198.164.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id em2sm5199855igc.0.2012.02.19.13.45.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:45:07 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:44:55 -0500
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <CB66D677.1543E%victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.
In-Reply-To: <4F414C28.8040606@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Russell Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.
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: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:45:10 -0000

On 12-02-19 2:23 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-02-20 05:37, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>> So, when I read  464xlat what I see is a stack of existing RFCs used in
>> a specific fashion which the draft describes. I don't see any new
>> standards work.
>
>fwiw I agree with that. I think v6ops is the appropriate venue
>for descriptions of how to knit existing protocol specs together
>in operational scenarios.

I would agree as well.  No new protocols.  We are using what's in the tool
kit to make things work.  Ops seems to be the right area for this type of
work

>
>I do object slightly to the way draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat uses
>the word "architecture". It's an operational scenario, not an
>architecture, IMHO.

Are you concerned that the use of "architecture" may be interpreted as
protocol architecture vs. network architecture?  IMHO, I would suggest
what's in the document reflects a network/deployment architecture (my
opinion).

Perhaps authors can clarify what they meant.

Regards,

Victor K


>
>   Brian
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>v6ops@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email