IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 20 October 2017 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 DD06313445F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 54Ve2bZQxXEL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AE7113445C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id q126so4651586ywq.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EM6oOL8GOa1PdYuitRvI0pB3gLnEEMFaD5n+9lC4Z7Q=; b=MJmQfL2yCYRM1PIJD8Z3EzfDwHN3tTmWpaz/vxaSwqDBzwzX/spf6NZxSD5GmX5Xnn bJK/EQTBZ3gEri9FBkRfcVLdbwBqEw6jnStr266j203j+Lz6DqdyjngoeWnMNFetUq40 Em5Rx9gNbybvDsUh7pT9cfmvcacXgVorVR7OMZgZSPT5le8QIJ4YBYRrO2+vPxS1p+lH 7JYXcTDHp56U9hlexUDrOAYZuLuAxkA6YjWljmbJjLgj68MRNk/Ws0VtxFdeHeECPmTy 6e7bRN36P0YoRbGr0PFyC52TMTKUaIHbqJJDWQvnfzcVrZMzOtylFAZgxCUJGMSyXBzM Vvuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EM6oOL8GOa1PdYuitRvI0pB3gLnEEMFaD5n+9lC4Z7Q=; b=Xu3f94AtpY8izIqhRarZ4DOcHbHUSw2TefaKsWQ5tEIO+rigtHT5WeJ9DP8T/bo7YM E8xf9bveiOehMmQN43yuLYQqevLgUN1v8PZwt889oqAVcTFxA/bL3RDix/lwMbkw9Mqj zjej9g0LFnZuRpMoZYwlSnRCBDLELjY749am22omZ75TTU7O4Ua/fA1yFyNSvVR5z395 KutlRyKtO5zSmVl9CzLSOu9TqgCmEWsT+mQCKleRu2SEu7FSfSQDfQ3gMLqsmgRy1lKW GRzSFn5RWHi+trLNQj4Q2L96XPlMlet5Pmx0jv2Zf8Ky8D/tddPNCA8tlD3XvWE9xwY5 gLcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUTamEwyeDlSyo4TlfKbjp3y5DZspFDiYFtDidY2K28hGrzmW+C UN02Npl6saLQOJgx8DNvpulByO3D7RxsEccG9gi+9Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SP/YfT0fMdAB80ndJuPFxOcdUQrdPHclx2MuH4yTA3juK6rbFjoCNpscVyP/eilwk7Yve7UrJVDk5vEjRrt+8=
X-Received: by 10.37.83.66 with SMTP id h63mr3963423ybb.397.1508537063632; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.75.194 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ebce9d8b-a293-e97d-9856-54649e19910a@gmail.com>
References: <150853234997.15403.8100492287000664954.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <eb737375-1bf5-1e1d-3539-2821058870c5@gmail.com> <CABcZeBMA4qiWMFDWmcFLpmTsOm096YHggY1yrx4A3-TuHjGR=Q@mail.gmail.com> <99633595-CC02-4CDB-AEEA-AE330410531B@apple.com> <ebce9d8b-a293-e97d-9856-54649e19910a@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:03:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOF9rL_Ju0QCAp136F11WSwbRXGZ8arz6g=iOc_3L0ivQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e688ecf3f8f055c01a754"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hBkN86LnjZ81HgTONa2vFhtbA48>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:04:34 -0000

I'm fine with Tommy's new text

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/10/2017 10:33, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 20, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> Eric,
> >>
> >> On 21/10/2017 09:45, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >>> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> >>> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: No Objection
> >>>
> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> >>> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.
> html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
> >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis/ <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> COMMENT:
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> This document should provide a rationale for why you are favoring v6
> over v4
> >>> addresses when v4 addresses resolve first. Is there some technical
> reason
> >>> (e.g., it works better) or is there just a political reason (we want
> to push
> >>> people to v6).
> >>
> >> I don't think that's a political desire. IPv6 in general works better,
> >> because it isn't encumbered by NAT.
> >>
> >> Can you please provide a reference to a measurement showing that this
> is true?
> >> -Ekr
> >
> > For the draft, I'm going to update it to point to the IPv6 RFC (RFC
> 8200) to point to the various design benefits that an implementation may
> favor.
> >
> > While I agree that in our experience, we've seen performance benefits
> gained by avoiding NATs, etc, I don't believe that we have the correct
> material to reference from this draft to assert that point.
>
> Yes, we sadly lack serious scientific measurement about this, and about
> NAT-induced
> transaction failures too. There are data on the prevalence of CGN but not
> on its effects on user performance and reliability, as far as I know.
>
> So, Eric, I can't answer your challenge.
>
>    Brian
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tommy
> >>
> >> So we want to push people to v6
> >> for technical reasons.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    Brian
> >>
> >>> I could live with either, but the document should be clear IMO.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> v6ops mailing list
> >>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email