IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Sat, 24 March 2012 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
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 0F5BE21F8705 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, 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 wMV29FcReifp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0E521F86FD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhq7 with SMTP id hq7so2356393wib.13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=c9Ri25+SSnWOD/r9XqcdV2+Usg/xndBsKkBJvJcfYrU=; b=TVEqH0nq8SBMeWTAzY8baJP/HvhW+WLIBXhdxEYVwNNy0ruxohWyepLYJFM2PJF+Ne AkUMI/VVK4gQ6TNHHTTbcG1jbnryEUyqvUMl6NyjYylQD/pKc9wYYCQAsUXU+MHBXiv3 GuDnr6UyDC2O7BFfRqfTDtrdczUO21YKnZv6rOcmSjGdehnxc4psXI+EN76nOyqkGS9+ B/JqRjDx6spakswqW0XFHqSJ11LC8XO7YkSZFXzRd4dVIIWuJRCzNP1tpH7xxBs8ZKgA 2lDzdtWteiWOnY/YgHoyjPN1JvGAxtyU5jBdLte8dJbQwdgOh5WbECxqqtuzzUzMSJdR r3MQ==
Received: by 10.180.14.103 with SMTP id o7mr1221617wic.7.1332588808933; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-townsley-8914.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j3sm36498057wiw.1.2012.03.24.04.33.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <B5D87268-1B10-41D8-9948-650AFDD0B657@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:33:19 +0100
Message-Id: <D0CE7E85-CEA6-470D-A388-0C9A56C3E77B@townsley.net>
References: <6A0BFABB-225C-4D14-83F5-4398AF0E5CC3@cisco.com> <A2297077-2804-407E-9971-5459F0E39806@townsley.net> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30444B2D2@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30444B2E1@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <3723BC44-931F-4852-88A4-716931770F85@cisco.com> <B5D87268-1B10-41D8-9948-650AFDD0B657@cisco.com>
To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnygQj+23QCBezf0EDwkF1d9jSpaECccM8o/Zu67TyabLjc9s6OI0r7cwBlgKJ2Fow4FRR1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:33:31 -0000

On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:

> it's way too nice a day to give the issue the consideration it deserves.   

Enjoy Spring in Paris, Ralph. Wish I was :-)

> So, I'll post a response, but likely not until tomorrow when I'll be sequestered indoors most of the day, anyway.

FWIW, it seem the chairs have given airtime for us to talk about this Monday morning if you want to wait until you have heard the real-time part of the discussion.

- Mark


> 
> - Ralph
> 
> On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:17 PM, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Mar 24, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
>> 
>>> Further, isn’t draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 specifying technology or is there another document that covers the technology in more detail?  Technology documents need to move to a different WG. 
>> 
>> I'm reading your statement above, and in other email reading statements by someone using the same email address that go into some detail on the implications of binary flags in messages. I'm wondering where the line is drawn and why one draws it.
>> 
>> I have asked a selection of ADs and WG Chairs to weigh in on where the document should be discussed; if someone comes back to Joel and I with "this obviously belongs in <>", we'll send it there or send the relevant subset there. Personally, I think it falls within the charter of operational procedures used in IPv6 networks.
>> 
>> Where I draw the line on the normative reference that Ole and Mark would like is how well baked the proposed procedures are. We will determine that Monday.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email