Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 08 February 2012 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 5996D21F851B; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:06:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 kfuKXn+CkxGX; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:06:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83C121F8508; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:06:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 566A6C944A; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:05:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:3981:7370:f4ed:515c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDD4F216C6A; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:05:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A0D1D0458C; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:05:48 +1100 (EST)
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20120201150911.25955.80172.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAAedzxqXaPtNkyGt-P9xzdxvPkgLXcGOr-f3q7BuRq9555duaw@mail.gmail.com> <8EA035DE-DAB9-4920-9BD6-75944848CA5D@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2xgkEeK7SaRjMZSbdJPs0u5FTozo0qa5MA4fda+SBcyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:54:31 +0900." <CAKD1Yr2xgkEeK7SaRjMZSbdJPs0u5FTozo0qa5MA4fda+SBcyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:05:48 +1100
Message-Id: <20120208210548.18A0D1D0458C@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: v6ops v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:06:05 -0000

In message <CAKD1Yr2xgkEeK7SaRjMZSbdJPs0u5FTozo0qa5MA4fda+SBcyw@mail.gmail.com>,
 Lorenzo Colitti writes:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in
> > large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in
> > which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's
> > comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph
> > and Jari finally cleared their "discuss" ballots a couple of weeks ago, and
> > we are having a second IETF last call.
> >
> > I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for
> > the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack.
> > Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you
> > think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to
> > this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the
> > public dialog or choose to not comment at all?
> 
> 
> Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection.
> 
> The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a key
> piece of the puzzle.
> 
> We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC
> ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and probably
> many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo

World IPv6 day just means Google is at 5.5 now and will go to
5.6/5.7.  It really does not change anything.  The decision to
whitelist is a subjective one, not a objective one.  Similarly the
decision to stop whitelisting is also a subjective one.

While I, and I suspect most of the list, think that whitelisting
should no longer be needed that isn't our call to make.  All we can
do is encourage people to not whitelist by running dual stack
services without using whitelisting.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org