On 13 Feb 2012, at 22:01, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Yet another problem in draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise...
>
> Section 2.4 (Private IPv4 address scope):
> [...]
>> The algorithm currently specified in RFC 3484 is based on the
>> assumption that a source address with a small scope cannot reach a
>
:01 PM
>>> To: Dave Thaler; 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Brian E Carpenter'
>>> Cc: 'ipv6@ietf.org'; 'Brian Haberman'; 'Bob Hinden'
>>> Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
>>>
>>&
etf.org'; 'Brian Haberman'; 'Bob Hinden'
>> Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
>>
>> Yet another problem in draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise...
>>
>> Section 2.4 (Private IPv4 address scope):
>> [...]
&
Dave,
one quick question below.
On 2012/02/11, at 11:41, Dave Thaler wrote:
> I'm now working on an actual update to rfc3484 that would Obsolete
> (not Update) it. I found a couple more technical issues in so doing.
> I also now believe it's faster to do the replacement than it is to
> fix a d
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Thaler
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 2:01 PM
> To: Dave Thaler; 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Brian E Carpenter'
> Cc: 'ipv6@ietf.org'; 'Brian Haberman'; 'Bob Hinden'
> Subject: RE: 6MAN
Yet another problem in draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise...
Section 2.4 (Private IPv4 address scope):
[...]
> The algorithm currently specified in RFC 3484 is based on the
> assumption that a source address with a small scope cannot reach a
> destination address with a larger scope.
[...]
The
One typo below...
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Thaler
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:42 PM
> To: Dave Thaler; Chris Grundemann; Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-0
I'm now working on an actual update to rfc3484 that would Obsolete
(not Update) it. I found a couple more technical issues in so doing.
I also now believe it's faster to do the replacement than it is to
fix a delta-based document.
1) -revise documented the issue with Rule 9 of section 6, but doe
On 2012-01-28 14:23, Dave Thaler wrote:
...
> That said, I think it would be easy to get consensus since I made specific
> recommendations that I don't think should be controversial. But in any case,
> this would definitely need a second WGLC.
True, but let's do it, since the market really needs
> >> Hmm sorry for being unclear, the technical part looked okay as far as
> >> I could tell, but as the quoted words from you, it will probably be
> >> more confusing to have two documents where the last one update/change
> >> the first one. Would be much better to have just one
> >> replacing/upd
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:49, Tim Chown wrote:
> Well, there are two questions here.
>
> One is whether the WG believes the update as described in
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05 is correct and complete. I have not seen
> (yet) any significant technical concerns raised. The last of those
Seems to me we all agree on this much:
>> First getting this one out since it fix something quite broken,
Regards
Brian
On 2011-12-16 23:49, Tim Chown wrote:
> Well, there are two questions here.
>
> One is whether the WG believes the update as described in
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-
Well, there are two questions here.
One is whether the WG believes the update as described in
draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05 is correct and complete. I have not seen
(yet) any significant technical concerns raised. The last of those were
discussed and (we believe) resolved in Quebec. Are
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Roger,
>
> On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>> wrote:
>>> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
>>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 15:55, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Roger,
>
> On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>> wrote:
>>> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
>>>
>
Roger,
On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
>>
>> Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
>
> Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find the
> changes is better."
>
> If it wasn't clear, I believe
Well, the end of my conversation is at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14948.html
Summary: "an update that makes it easy for the implementer to find the changes
is better."
If it wasn't clear, I believe this document is technically done and needs
to be advanced, but it does
On 12/15/11 2:07 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2011 7:32 PM, "Brian Haberman" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>> Unfortunately, the draft is in a limbo state at this point. The WG
>> Last Call ended about a month ago with zero comments or statements of
>> support. The chairs cannot advance
On Dec 15, 2011 7:32 PM, "Brian Haberman" wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
> Unfortunately, the draft is in a limbo state at this point. The WG
> Last Call ended about a month ago with zero comments or statements of
> support. The chairs cannot advance this document without some show of
> support by the
Hi Chris,
Unfortunately, the draft is in a limbo state at this point. The WG
Last Call ended about a month ago with zero comments or statements of
support. The chairs cannot advance this document without some show of
support by the community.
I humbly request that members of the workin
Hello and apologies to the list if this is redundant, but what is the
current status of this I-D?
I note that the status page[1] was not updated to reflect this last
call and I do not see any further updates or mention of an -06 or an
IETF last call. Perhaps the authors are working on this off-lin
Carpenter'; Arifumi Matsumoto
> Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
>
> I have read and reviewed -05.
>
> The document is a good start, but I have some issues with it currently.
>
> Summary of substantial technical issues:
>
> 1) In t
.org] On Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 6:48 AM
> To: Arifumi Matsumoto
> Cc: 6man
> Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
>
> > So, which of update or replace do you prefer ?
>
> Hmm. If we want
> So, which of update or replace do you prefer ?
Hmm. If we want to go quickly, an update that makes it easy for
the implementer to find the changes is better.
Regards
Brian
On 2011-11-13 21:19, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> Brian,
>
> thank you for your comments.
>
> On 2011/11/09, at 10:11,
Brian,
thank you for your comments.
On 2011/11/09, at 10:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I'm going to make myself unpopular.
>
> Reading this document as a proposed standard, I think it will confuse the
> reader.
> I think that what we actually need is a 100% replacement of RFC
Hi,
I think I'm going to make myself unpopular.
Reading this document as a proposed standard, I think it will confuse the
reader.
I think that what we actually need is a 100% replacement of RFC 3484, that
can be read on its own.
(We've been here before - the same argument is why we ended up doi
27 matches
Mail list logo
