IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Moderate: Re: Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 4B9BE21F9678; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 08:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 2cOdByddCftv; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 08:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B2521F9675; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 08:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local ([196.38.103.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r57FQFog055883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:26:25 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <51B1A934.4000207@bogus.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 05:34:44 -0400
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/21.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <05DB0BDC-9B6D-4852-B878-5320ABC14D67@steffann.nl> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C5A63@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1tSy9XZ5A8Zc-doBTfWiPX1TkqGuJeqty9=mhwwHPRKA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C6F61@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr29nnUt_fr0eXM9bByU+UjO0R9G2_UgKBpdjiO9igKY1g@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C73E5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0UqcAODWGYEcV4r=Vn_SVVggRLekHzbUwar20EH2d55g@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C75A3@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1QXVyCSxa9=KiY2EedxuDeGMKF=Z2Smyt8o03=e2X0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1QXVyCSxa9=KiY2EedxuDeGMKF=Z2Smyt8o03=e2X0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:26:30 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "<draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix@tools.ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] Moderate: Re: Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03
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: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:26:35 -0000

On 6/6/13 10:09 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com 
> <mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>> wrote:
>
>>     Saying "it says nothing of the sort" without even citing it is
>>     not a very convincing argument. If you want to state convincingly
>>     that it says nothing of the sort, then why not start from the
>>     text I posted earlier and explain why my interpretation is incorrect?
>
>     The statement you claim is in there isn't in there.   How am I
>     supposed to point out to you the place where it isn't?
>
>
> Start by saying how the statement I point to as justification does 
> not, in fact, mean what I say, and why it does not?

I think we established somewhat conclusively were the various 
participants in this discussion stand, myself included. We're mostly 
generating heat at this point on the policy debate so I think we can 
move on.

have a good weekend.

thanks
joel

>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email