Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00.txt

Mark ZZZ Smith <> Fri, 20 February 2015 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36521A1B71 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:33:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.734
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HK_RANDOM_REPLYTO=1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kSHJ8DMQvxKg for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 539B71A1B70 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:33:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1424399625; bh=aekScytVPMGhVocy2hncTaOTTz9GI9Q+gQc/LJAuCNo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=JkPwN+2f1ohA4IwJrEbI2ZlIPWLZDjI6QjxbRLs4ac/Vtfm7IputBfj7ev/QWPfNdxNTeHIoxGbiNDKwgQpS9H9/0gwcR4HiwvJFhVtVbbzaAZq7iyEVAqajYpCg8SAqnIEJFe+tEOz364chu2PO2qL3DiyclgYCNi2HYaAPaVgCq3avIVvcHp2lGtJfOKV5R2zljbC2NPXQ7aQvxouwcZouHur39+BmDKPgXUJ3LY3SdygIo6CKbx3LeKBxXKcxB4aHWE4MBo+rjApOjmiGOHTMWBVsSisW1k9HjmIIL0dk246yndMYo7FpFn9vZG17+I9Wan/wLICIHUiD8cm/wQ==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Feb 2015 02:33:45 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Feb 2015 02:31:00 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Feb 2015 02:31:00 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Feb 2015 02:30:59 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Feb 2015 02:30:59 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: YXxfEt4VM1mVxPcpuvAoSu4CjaO14SGtkGW7PgPHErhSPArM1kzqV2Fx_MUWHPu 8wjEui1bSb8UAsaVwstOP0maTkeT_KXxI9inFWj5YUi5JKQKIZ.GQps0jJ_wS90dr81xJIhtpDE3 VFb2lsXBMO.vZ8mgTx0IR.p75KACNUznTLgqh2RMQhAT071r9JEPQPMhjm33xaDQon2Ec1bh5nNu P9A9CCowv7pyzf7DCP6mSw2FPpCNI8XDGNuk0LmWeAzsmWe5Ja3wAMqn5zf67R_.a87HJl_OFxNJ OiaYjtfjCKEeK3KPfC.pvO4leshZ.8SPsB3_T5vaDINJhZK2pEtI288RRmXNgPd2vVLcSq1LpDby EWeYxM7JWU1po1wM_H6UBT3Kf0t36JrzC9RjqsxOb6zAg6RmvNL4GICT.wX7e59FhxItkW_JzvXo j.cwRuztgWpTHvJYhvSy_zGSQUPhEZ69Tf.ByY9HwBBGPoxKTvWBO46KuNKiCO.EzF2EBrh2xF4M CEUn0B7ptDBZ7V5AlREVKlzGMs7g.Op.ksgTmfqjdaYHNvoCr3CgiFA--
Received: by; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 02:30:59 +0000
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 02:30:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <>
To: "t. petch" <>, Mark Andrews <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <034e01d04c30$66fde1c0$>
References: <034e01d04c30$66fde1c0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 02:33:47 -0000

> Raising RFC5782 and RFC6471 is a Red Herring.


Classifying those two RFC as Informational is a subtlety that those
reading this e-mail will understand but most will not (as I am reminded
of when I have seen manufacturers cite conformance to Internet
Drafts:-).   I am sure that if I looked hard enough I would find these
RFC being cited as if they were Standards, let alone a BCP.  And note
the title of RFC6471

'overview of Best email dns-based list (DNSBL) Operational Practices '
(my capitalisation).

As I recall, the reason why it is not a BCP, when it is a BCP in all but
name, is political, that the BCP stream is owned by the IETF and that
RFC is not a product of the IETF.

So, rightly or wrongly, the IETF has implicitly endorsed a usage of
127.0.0.n, where n is a small number, and it would be foolish, IMHO, to
endorse a separate usage.

/ So it seems now that on loopback interfaces, since 1982, is now incorrect because it is 'separate usage' and needs to be changed.

/ The IETF has explicitly said those RFCs are Informational. If the IETF then chooses to treat those documents implicitly as standards (by accepting that low 127.0.0.n addresses are only for the purpose of DNSBLs), then there is no value in any of the other more rigorous IETF standards processes. Everything should be published as Informational instead, and there is no need for working groups etc. ...

/ If some people don't understand or aren't aware of what the categories of RFCs are, that doesn't mean those category labels are useless - they're just useless to people who don't understand them. To some extent it is the IETF's problem, as there should be more education about the IETF process/statues etc. However, the IETF abandoning or ignoring those labels on RFCs doesn't solve the problem for which they exist, it makes the problem worse. 

  (For some reason, the choice of percent for
interface identifiers, when percent was already spoken for in URIs,
comes to mind).

Last I heard, IPv6 is different, that the number of MX is small, the
namespace is enormous and so while ::FFFF:7F00:2 was posited, it is
unlikely to gain much traction.

Tom Petch

> Mark
> > Perhaps those RFC should have included an IANA Considerations:-(
> >
> > Tom Petch
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET:

v6ops mailing list