Re: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison

Gábor Lencse <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Sat, 01 June 2019 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 F3A8A12026B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 04:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 JUGVA4bM75sd for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 04:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7417E1200F7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 04:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.11.4] (pl22370.ag1212.nttpc.ne.jp [1.33.49.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x51BOTgj020966 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Jun 2019 13:24:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host pl22370.ag1212.nttpc.ne.jp [1.33.49.98] claimed to be [192.168.11.4]
To: Yannis Nikolopoulos <yanodd@otenet.gr>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <BYAPR05MB424560402C84199F4D131E43AE390@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <FE63840C-96F8-4EC6-BF1F-1182530D6F2B@gmail.com> <77004251-b478-696d-8e7b-a1f460a88c9e@hit.bme.hu> <40b2e0c7-84b6-bd9b-45ba-08dafd14d7b7@otenet.gr>
From: Gábor Lencse <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <9727945d-808c-f1ac-2594-a52142eb3c9e@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2019 20:24:28 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40b2e0c7-84b6-bd9b-45ba-08dafd14d7b7@otenet.gr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------38B1C2101C1B808DA5F5D4E0"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=1.33.49.98; helo=[192.168.11.4]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/h-F6XVjb7B7r6Azghqj5zjYuZ_4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 01 Jun 2019 11:24:46 -0000

Dear Yannis,

Thank you very much for your support and comments.

Could you please elaborate, what you miss from the document?

Best regards,

Gábor

On 6/1/2019 19:06, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'll just re-iterate what I thought about this in the past. I do find 
> it useful in principle, but it does not yet feel like a comparison 
> document that operators can use as reference. Having said that, I do 
> support its adoption and would like to see a new version
>
> regards,
> Yannis
>
> On 5/3/19 12:26 PM, Gábor Lencse wrote:
>>
>> Dear v6ops Members,
>>
>> Yes, as Fread wrote, we would like our draft be adopted by the WG.
>>
>> IMHO, RFC 6180 covers a much wider topic than our I-D, thus I 
>> recommend that our I-D should only update it (and not obsolete it).
>>
>> It seemed to me from the minutes ( 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/minutes?item=minutes-104-v6ops-00.html 
>> ) that several people considered our draft useful.
>>
>> Please, react now: Do you consider it useful and support its adoption 
>> as a WG item?
>>
>> What do you think is missing from it? Which direction should we go?
>>
>> Are there any questionable statements? Anything, which is biased?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Gábor
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/2019 11:03, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> At least part of the question is that the authors would like this to be a working group draft. I'm interested to know what the working group thinks of it. It started out as an essentially academic paper, and would update or obsolete RFC 6180.
>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Ron Bonica<rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Each week between now and IETF 105, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it.
>>>>
>>>> This week, please review and comment on draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison.
>>>>
>>>>                                                              Fred and Ron
>>>>
>>>> Non-Juniper
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>