Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On 2/21/12 2:54 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The "high-service-level domains" that prompted this draft to be written, and all the implementers I'm currently aware of, are decommissioning the practice. So the paragr

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 00:52, Livingood, Jason < jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > To be more specific, at least section 5.5 ("it is unclear > how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have > changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting >

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

To be more specific, at least section 5.5 ("it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice") is now incorrect. It *is*

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On 2/9/12 01:25 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli > wrote: > > Ops is not marketing. > > > And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that > produces ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On 2/9/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > Or, the way I read you, you tell us that this entire document isn't > relevant anymore. > > It cover something called whitelisting that were in use for a short > periode of time for reason no one in a few year can understand as > relevant? +1 --

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this > draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the > draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest was added > later.) >

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli wrote: > Ops is not marketing. > And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that produces ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not be high on my list. This is not about marketing. > If you're saying some flag da

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

In message , Lorenzo Colitti writes: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker 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 ma

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker 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 pick

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text? On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker wrote: > The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large > part, a rewrite - arrived in October

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On 2/8/12 05:54 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker > 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 dec

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On 4 February 2012 01:35, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote: > >> World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I >> think.  Since this would be published after the announcement of World >> IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote: > World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I > think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World > IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own > applicability in a post- World IPv

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

I think that although the draft mainly discusses -whitelisting, it can be more specific in section 2 on issues impacting content delivery over ipv6. Perhaps the biggest challenge in the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition is that the two protocols are not compatible; that is, IPv4-only systems cannot ta

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet. On 2 February 2012 00:09, The IESG