After the errata was posted, there was a short discussion on
6man about this and comments were made that lower case was a
WG decision and it stands. My apologies for forgetting to
update the status.
Regards,
Seiichi
(2012/05/30 9:37), Randy Bush wrote:
Next thing you know, I'm going along based
I think the first paragraph of the conclusion
should be noted in the introductory part of the draft
so that enterprise network managers know that this
document is important to them.
Seiichi
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just read this thread. This is so great.
Thanks to Thomas and all for the new text.
Seiichi
(2011/05/14 8:32), Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
The chairs have determined that there is a strong consensus to
elevate DHCPv6 to SHOULD support in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(2010/12/04 1:07), Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,
On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There is no way this is an erratum. There was a clear choice in the WG
to standardise on lower case.
I agree. This was a deliberate decision
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think this is better discussed in 6man.
The use of the symbol :: MUST be used to its maximum capability.
means, you have to represent an address as
2001:db8::1 and not 2001:db8:0:0:0:0:0:1
:: instead of 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
I didn't quite understand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for the comments.
This also should go to the 6man list.
Regards,
Seiichi
- Original Message
Subject: Re: Further Comment to RFC 5952
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:02:10 +0200
From: Test t...@globis.net
To: kawamu...@mesh.ad.jp,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
support
- --seiichi
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
I am starting a one week consensus call on adopting:
Title : Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links
Author(s) : M. Kohno, et al.
Filename :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ole-san
Ole Troan wrote:
Seiichi-san,
BGP peerings and what not could use link-local addresses. e.g:
router A -- router B
fe80::1fe80::2
dead:beef::1/128 c001:cafe::2/128
if
I get a BGP neighbor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jared Mauch wrote:
Jared Mauch
On Aug 16, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Ole Troan o...@cisco.com wrote:
please ping my router, it's interface address is:
fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ole-san
Ole Troan wrote:
please ping my router, it's interface address is:
fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
interface either :(
but they can ping whatever global /128 you put on that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
This already came up on the list once before,
and since its in AUTH48 now, I would like to
make the changes to the document.
Current section 4.2 has 3 parts, and the first two are
4.2.1. Shorten as Much as Possible
The use of the symbol ::
the process. Given the
comments on the list, I wouldn't advise that. It would mean another working
group last call, AD review, IETF last call, IESG review, directorate reviews,
RFC-Editor edit pass, etc.
Bob
On Aug 4, 2010, at 4:26 AM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
Hi
This already came
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has
considered the draft and said what it wanted to say, and at this
point the RFC Editor is asking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
snip
This is a less invasive change (and I think the WG had previously some
concensus on this, but the WG chairs will know). But yes, the formally
correct procedure is likely the errata approach.
This was bothering me a bit and I went back to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I support this.
Seiichi
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the chairs are soliciting
input on adopting:
Title : Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision
Author(s) : A. Matsumoto, et al.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Suresh
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Seiichi,
On 10-04-26 01:27 AM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
Do you think the following would work?
I merged 4.2.2. Handling One 16 bit 0 Field with your text
4.2.1. When to use ::
If the address contains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Brett
Its both.
Regards,
Seiichi
Brett Tate wrote:
The following is indicated within draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07
section 4.2.1 Shorten As Much As Possible.
The use of symbol :: MUST be used to its maximum capability. For
just one 16 bit 0 field.
For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct.
Regards,
Seiichi
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Seiichi,
On 10-04-25 08:11 PM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Brett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I noticed the VRRP for IPv4 and IPv6 RFC
was just published. I have seen implementations of
VRRP or HSRP (IPv6) and some only allow link local
vips to be configured. From an operational viewpoint
it would be preferable to have a global address vip,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Doug
Thanks. I think I get a few more
chances at fixing editorial stuff.
I'll be sure to remember these.
Regards,
Seiichi
Doug Barton wrote:
On 3/5/2010 4:07 PM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
Hi Jari
..resending. this time making sure its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jari
..resending. this time making sure its to the 6man list...
I think the points rasied at the IESG teltechat
have been cleared and the 6man WG feels comfortable
with the latest version of the draft.
Will this be placed on the agenda of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi Sheng
I have had requests from enterprise
network managers that they did not like
IPv6 addresses generated autonomously by
a node. I though this draft addresses such
issues and there probably are needs out there.
I was quite surprised that it will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian, Doug, Antonio
Thanks for the text idea.
So the final fix will probably look like this.
As IPv6 deployment increases there will be a dramatic increase in the
need to use IPv6 addresses in text.
While the IPv6 address architecture in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have committed the changes.
Thanks to everyone that helped.
All issues raised should be clear now.
Regards,
Seiichi
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Doug
I'm willing to take Brian's
suggestions on this one.
Thank you very much for the suggestion though,
and also the editorial tips.
Regards,
Seiichi
Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/21/10 11:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-02-21 19:38, Doug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Brian
For URIs containing IPv6 address literals, [RFC3986] MUST
be followed, as well as the rules in this document.
Couldn't be put any more clear than this.
Thank you.
Regards,
Seiichi
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
I'm generally
prefix. Did you mean RFC
2765/draft-ietf-behave-address-format?
RFC2765, which will probably be obsoleted by the dehave draft.
Regards,
Seiichi
Роман Донченко wrote:
Seiichi Kawamura kawamu...@mesh.ad.jp писал в своём письме Wed, 17 Feb
2010 05:50:58 +0300:
Hi
I have uploaded the new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I have uploaded the new version of the draft.
I hope this addresses the issues that were raised.
I have removed the Conclusion part since
Section 4 is now clear and concise.
Thank you Ron, for providing good text in IESG COMMENT.
Regards,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Finally catching up to the thread...
It is mentioned in the Appendix that
inet_ntop is a good code reference.
There's also ipv6calc
http://www.deepspace6.net/projects/ipv6calc.html
Regards,
Seiichi
Jari Arkko wrote:
Mark,
ISC's inet_ntop() was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Bob
There's two things this document asks for.
(1) for people to document IPv6 address in the recommended way.
(2) implementations to display(or save to text/log) IPv6 addresses in the
recommended way.
(1) can never become a MUST. (2), yes but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
I see the telechat is scheduled for tomorrow.
I will wait.
Regards,
Seiichi
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
OK, we do disagree about that ;-)
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I guess it comes down to either (2) or (3),
but I'm slightly uncomfortable with the word require in (3).
What I personally like, is
the text representation is SOMETHING, take into account new WKPs.
Also suggest that tools might help if they had the
notation may be
useful in
these cases./t
Regards,
Seiichi
Dan Wing wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 1:34 AM
To: Seiichi Kawamura
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jari
Thanks so much for the thorough review.
First just an observation. I felt that the motivation part of the draft
was unnecessarily long and at times not fully waterproof. I think the
draft would have been stronger by making a short
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jinmei-san
Thanks for your comments.
I think they all give help in clarifying.
I will make the change.
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
At Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:47 -0700,
Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
This message starts a 2-week 6MAN Working
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Alex
Thanks for your support and comments.
Please see inline.
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I support it.
Half-substantive and half-editorial comments follow.
draft:
When the length of the
consecutive 16 bit 0 fields are equal (i.e.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Vijay
Speaking from an ISP operator's point of view,
transiency of autoconf addresses in my design all the time? How safe
normal
is it to replace all manual IPv6 address configuration with
auto-configuration in a large IPv6 deployment esp in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I did think the verification problem that Heikki mentioned is
important and can happen in other protocols so I might fix the
wording to focus on the problem.
Certificates with IP addresses are sold and used, so I would not be
surprised if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Heikki
Thanks for taking the time to review the document,
and your point is something that I think is worth
mentioning in the draft. How about we add a sub-section
like this
3.2.5 verification and validiation
[RFC 5280] section 4.2.1.6 states
fix the wording to focus on the problem.
Regards,
Seiichi
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-08-27 15:55, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
Hi Heikki
Thanks for taking the time to review the document,
and your point is something that I think is worth
mentioning in the draft. How about we add a sub
hopefully try to come up with a text
before the 6man meeting on Wednesday.
Regards,
Seiichi
Роман Донченко wrote:
Hello,
Seiichi Kawamura kawamu...@mesh.ad.jp писал(а) в своём письме Thu, 09
Jul 2009 08:32:39 +0400:
The rest is more controversial. While ISATAP addresses obviously make
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Roman,
Appologies for the lateness of my reply,
and thanks for the many helpful comments.
I'll try to incorporate the editorial fixes
as much as possible.
The following comments are mostly about the technical part.
The draft seems to downplay
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all
Thanks so much for all the comments and inputs.
I tried to incorporate them as much as possible
in the new version. Please have a look.
I did remove the phonetics part this time.
Regards,
Seiichi
- Original Message
Subject:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
Thomas Narten wrote:
How about something like:
When reassembling an IPv6 datagram, if one or more its constituent
fragments is determined to be an overlapping fragment, the entire
datagram (and any constituent fragments --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Antonio
I suspect you'll find the ICAO pronunciation is in more common use than
the ITU pronunciations among english speakers. Since english is the
Thanks. I did have doubts about this.
Regards,
Seiichi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
ideas?
Regards,
Seiichi
Dave Thaler wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Seiichi Kawamura
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:05 PM
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: 6man; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: Review requested: draft-kawamura-ipv6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James, Mark
Thanks for the addition to the list.
FYI, I asked my local netops group (that's JANOG) on the mailing list
what their prefernce was, and it came down to two choices.
[] or #. Several comments were made against # (some would
parse it as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Suresh
I like the idea of this draft. Thanks for writing this. It would
simplify things a lot for debugging purposes.
and thank you for taking the time to read and comment!
* It is not clear WHO needs to comply with the recommendations in
It is recommended that one avoids an ambiguous separtor when
displaying addresses and port numbers together?
Seiichi Kawamura
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFKDL/EcrhTYfxyMkIRAhyxAJ47YJ4w9QHjvaRY2TCiUBRvBFaXJgCeNQF1
lFyVqX2q62QkCwDVTmefEBs=
=7ZvM
-END PGP SIGNATURE
49 matches
Mail list logo
