On Apr 22, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Based on the above, my understanding is that your appeal has now been
resolved.
Thomas,
Thank you for organizing the con-call that enable us to make those
progress.
The steps you mentioned address fully my concerns and resolve my appeal.
I'm parti
Alain,
This note summarizes the outcome of a conference call regarding your
appeal to the INT ADs of the IPv6 WG's decision to advance
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt. Attendees on the call
included the INT ADs (Margaret and myself), the IPv6 chairs (Brian and
Bob) as well as yourself.
Y
Alain Durand wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2004, at 9:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Yes, I appologise for accidentally resurrecting the fixed charge,
> > by typing "is suggested" when my brain was thinking "was suggested."
> >
> > We did indeed all agree to delegate *that* choice to IANA.
>
> Thi
On Mar 9, 2004, at 9:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, I appologise for accidentally resurrecting the fixed charge,
by typing "is suggested" when my brain was thinking "was suggested."
We did indeed all agree to delegate *that* choice to IANA.
This is the part that bothers me. If we delegate th
Yes, I appologise for accidentally resurrecting the fixed charge,
by typing "is suggested" when my brain was thinking "was suggested."
We did indeed all agree to delegate *that* choice to IANA.
Brian
Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> Charlie,
>
> >I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and
> >shou
Has there been any resolution as to a name for the new addresses?
As I recall, there was some earlier discussion to this point.
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Hinden wrote:
Charlie,
I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and
should be avoided.
I trust that everyone commenting on this
Charlie,
I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and
should be avoided.
I trust that everyone commenting on this has actually read the current
draft. A fixed charge was removed several drafts ago.
The current draft does not impose a fixed charge for a prefix, but instead
sets a requirement
Hello Brian,
I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and
should be avoided.
To avoid hoarding, of course it would be good to
avoid bugs. In case, that is considered impossible
(sigh!) we can also demand that each address and/or
prefix be accompanied by a certificate generated
by IANA with a
Jarno, this is exactly why the fixed charge is suggested - to make
the cost of bulk hoarding significant.
And no, I don't want to imagine such a bug - I have more confidence than
that in IANA and the organisations IANA delegates to.
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thomas Narten wrote:
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Thomas Narten wrote:
|> why we can't make such assignments permanent. (Note: I'd agree with
|> you that the assignments shouldn't be permanent if there was a case to
|> be made that it may become necessary to reclaim them at some future
|> time. Is there?)
|>
|
|What if
Thomas Narten wrote:
> why we can't make such assignments permanent. (Note: I'd agree with
> you that the assignments shouldn't be permanent if there was a case to
> be made that it may become necessary to reclaim them at some future
> time. Is there?)
>
What if someone manages to hoard the addre
In my opinion, Thomas is correct. This is a technical choice, not
a "policy" choice, and well within the IETF's competence.
(Speaking as co-drafter and co-signer of RFC 2860, among other things.)
Brian
Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Feb 27, 2004,
Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> >
> > Let me ask you this then. If the word "permanent" is not appropriate,
> > what word is? To me, "not permanent" means that at some future time an
> > allocation that has been made to an endsite may
Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
[...]
|> But this
|> begs the question of why an end site would ever want to use such
|> addresses. I.e, this raises such questions as:
|>
|> - under what conditions would an address be reclaimed?
|
|to b
On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Let me ask you this then. If the word "permanent" is not appropriate,
what word is? To me, "not permanent" means that at some future time an
allocation that has been made to an endsite may be revoked.
The point I'm arguing is that it is not the IETF
Alain,
> Specifically, the part I object to are:
> - under the FD00::/8 prefix (Locally assigned):
> using the 'all zero' pattern instead of random bits would have the
> exact same effect
>as using the 'site local' address: it would create ambiguous
> addresses. The ipv6
>wg spend o
>Dear ADs, consider this mail as my second step in the appeal chain.
>
>Specifically, the part I object to are:
>
>- under the FD00::/8 prefix (Locally assigned):
>using the 'all zero' pattern instead of random bits would have the
>exact same effect
> as using the 'site local' address: it wo
On Feb 24, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Alain,
At 01:22 AM 2/20/2004, Alain Durand wrote:
Dears ADs,
Since the appeal process starts with the working group chairs, we
are responding as such.
I found it very unfortunate that the chair decided to request to
advance this document
witho
18 matches
Mail list logo
