[v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 02 November 2015 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451781B462B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 21:15:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xD3wIrc1YC4H for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 21:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAA1F1B44F6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 21:15:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2378; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446441349; x=1447650949; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=wpaFCcsZWSqDpHv1/5XQfkLFAG7GBHl8j1pm0i1+yuI=; b=FJ0l7D7al5AjtNOXyAr8VOSYmYZtrkFDWgV2mSi+/wf+lfNsZIsmRmZh o9FSSiNtkP9B/UTYycQ6N0aEDZuEoMLcQKAp8cpvb51JGF4X0DTDbzmO+ iiwoppFgUdahz8k58kID6Ila+pfa9LCU6tC7fUMZFb9XzDkD+GJ1NOexf s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,233,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="41155126"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 05:15:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com []) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA25Fm43032008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:15:49 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ( by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:15:47 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:15:47 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
Thread-Index: AQHRFS2IJ4h76jRqCkuPztS49pNk7Q==
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:15:47 +0000
Message-ID: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C943F93-0CC0-46AB-988D-3F7C41026CFC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/lr_yxnCT-psUVMjdMizX0wq9aPI>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
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: <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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 05:15:52 -0000

In the discussion this morning, we wound up in a position that I could not call "consensus", even "rough consensus", but per a hum of those in the room, within shouting distance of achieving that. Several people spoke at the mike asking for a sentence or brief discussion to be added, or a section clarified.

In the interest of expediency, let me ask those who spoke (and anyone else that has an issue) to respond to this note (copying the list) with suggested text. It might be best if this is stated as

the text that should be replaced goes here
the text that should replace it goes here


identify the section the text should go into
the text that should be added goes here

I'll permit the authors to declare suggested text out of scope; some of the discussion this morning left them commenting on scope and scope creep. However, I do ask them to justify the exclusion to the list, rather than just ignore the email.

This comment period ends 15 November.