IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D5A1A01C8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 X7O8CNTgXbtV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5DA1A025D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB7B1B803F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F16C19005C; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.146.119] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:42:20 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <534EAB83.1070906@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:42:18 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <70739713-281A-41E6-93ED-5EE1BC4B7FAB@nominum.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <20140415083615.GB43641@Space.Net> <534D3672.3060702@viagenie.ca> <3446106.k0lm12lQ8b@linne> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161034220.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2D+ZMi-UctuvrMzyqoHqgBy5O26GODT=bRwq0PsvLgLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161053110.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1WaMBx-0000BSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E772899C-8505-4436-8594-380799F91BA0@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2KFOi_hW3CCSbcT-uPQSwsUyE06cY3r8=CuunSbnz_xw@mail.gmail.com> <D701ADC0-EA9F-48DD-933F-9E02ACF3EBD4@nominum.com> <534EAB83.1070906@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gKtyJV0bMZL_HhOAFPzb-TcgjN4
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:42:28 -0000

On Apr 16, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> well no, not really.  I can find no discussion at all about this on the
> sunset4 mailing lists

There are actually two other drafts related to this topic:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yang-sunset4-weaken-dhcp-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yang-dhc-ipv4-dis-01

The authors of draft-yang-sunset4-weaken-dhcp-00 decided to combine their work with the current working group draft.   This was discussed in the meeting at IETF 87, and there were no objections (although there was substantial comment on the draft).   The draft was adopted by the working group in September 2013; no objections were raised.

So unless you are saying that there was a process failure here, the issue is effectively settled.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email