Re: compromise on the 6to4->Historic debate

On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > Have broken 6to4 relays is *good* for the long term health of the > Internet. Applications should cope well with one address of a > multi-homed server being unreachable. Billions of dollars have > been wasted because this has not been seen as a

Re: compromise on the 6to4->Historic debate

In message <92fb2780-5f10-4173-a982-12e114bff...@network-heretics.com>, Keith M oore writes: > I really think that the right answer is to write an applicability statement f > or 6to4 that: > > - refers to the existing documents about 6to4 problems > - points out use cases for 6to4 which work well

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC

On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Tim Chown wrote: > On 8 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Keith Moore wrote: >> >> Nor, bluntly, is it about a few big content providers or whomever else you >> want to label as important. The internet is a hugely diverse place, and you >> don't get to dismiss the concerns of peo

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC

On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote: > > [...] And it unclear to me why IETF would want to take away a _transition_ > technique from people for whom it is working... Let's be very clear. This proposed RFC would not "take away" the 6to4 transition mechanism. The working group consi

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC

On 8 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Keith Moore wrote: > > Nor, bluntly, is it about a few big content providers or whomever else you > want to label as important. The internet is a hugely diverse place, and you > don't get to dismiss the concerns of people whom you want to label as red > herrings. Ag

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC

On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:33 AM, TJ wrote: > > > Less than 1% of the IPv6 traffic reaching us is 6to4. > > Unless you provide IPv6 only sites, you should see very little ... that is > part of the point :). > > > > > It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle. > > I agree, but get m

compromise on the 6to4->Historic debate

I really think that the right answer is to write an applicability statement for 6to4 that: - refers to the existing documents about 6to4 problems - points out use cases for 6to4 which work well, and others that work less well - emphasizes that 6to4 is a short-term solution and was always intended

Re: [v6ops] Last Call:

Noel Chiappa wrote: > > > From: Martin Rex > > > > Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF > > process, because it would be a political .. statement. > > Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? Wouldn't want to set an > unfortunate precedent. I'm much more w

Re: [v6ops] Last Call:

Hi - > From: "james woodyatt" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:17 AM > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: > > On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Martin Rex > >> > >> Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF > >> process, because

Re: [v6ops] Last Call:

On 2011-06-09 04:17, james woodyatt wrote: > On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Martin Rex >>> Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF >>> process, because it would be a political .. statement. >> Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? W

Re: Summary for IESG last call to 5892bis draft

Well, a little miscommunication; I had meant to send the summary to the APPSAWG where the document was discussed, but sending it to the IETF list is OK too. Since it's here, one comment: On 6/8/11 2:04 AM, Jiankang YAO wrote: issue4: Add the IANA IDNA registry or r

Re: [v6ops] Last Call:

On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Martin Rex >> >> Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF >> process, because it would be a political .. statement. > > Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? Wouldn't want to set an > unfortunate prec

Re: [v6ops] Last Call:

> From: Martin Rex > Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF > process, because it would be a political .. statement. Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? Wouldn't want to set an unfortunate precedent. Noel

Summary for IESG last call to 5892bis draft

Dear all, AD suggests that we send a last call summary to the list. Below is the summary for IESG last call to 5892bis draft. Any comments are welcome. Jiankang Yao as a co-chair of APPSAWG --- Summary: The IESG last call for draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt e

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

setting aside interpretation and semantics for a moment, would there be utility in maintaining tables for each instance of Unicode? v On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > I think this is an improvement but there is one i

Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-13

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-v

Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22 R

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC

From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:21 AM To: George, Wesley Cc: ietf@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC WEG> Plea

Re: [v6ops] Last Call:

I'm sorry, I seem to have goofed up during mail editing... I meant to write that cassifying 6to4 as historic is INappropriate use of the IETF process in the last sentence. -Martin Martin Rex wrote: > > George, Wesley wrote: > > > > > It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle. > >

Re: Last Call: (Subnet Allocation Option) to Informational RFC

I have read parts of the document and I find it ok. The DHCP Server SHOULD allocate a subnet with prefix size less than or equal to the size P specified in the request. In other words, a subnet at least the size requested and possibly bigger. I agree, but "prefix size less than or equal to th

Re: Contents of the IDNA Derived Properties registry (was; Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04)

The discussion make it clear to me that the tasks for IANA are not clear. It seems that there needs to be a table for each supported version of Unicode. Thats document should state that clearly. It is a point where RFC 5892 seems to be vague, and we should take this opportunity to remove the

Contents of the IDNA Derived Properties registry (was; Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04)

(Subject line changed to reflect my belief that this is not about 5892bis. I've also removed the copy to the gen-art list -- if this isn't about 5892bis, it isn't on their agenda, even though Roni's review may have partially stimulated the thread.) --On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:45 -0700 Paul Hof

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

+1 --On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:50 +0100 Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Vint Cerf wrote: > >> setting aside interpretation and semantics for a moment, >> would there be utility in maintaining tables for each >> instance of Unicode? > > Yes, because developers will have different versions of > U

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

Paul Hoffman wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote: I think this is an improvement but there is one issue about which we have slightly different impressions. I hope the difference can be resolved without needing yet more tedious arguments about documentation. Indeed, if

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

Vint Cerf wrote: setting aside interpretation and semantics for a moment, would there be utility in maintaining tables for each instance of Unicode? Yes, because developers will have different versions of Unicode available to them. It would also help developers to migrate by seeing what has

Re: Last Call: (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

On Wed Jun 8 05:57:15 2011, Pete Resnick wrote: On 6/7/11 11:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: And, more to the point I think, to greatly decrease the quality of RFCs published. Perhaps that's OK, but we need pretty strong consensus that it's the right thing to do, and I haven't seen that cons