Jinmei,
to Proposed Standard. Please send substantive comments to the IPv6
mailing list. Editorial comments can be sent to the authors.
This last call will end on July 12, 2007.
Just out of curiosity, what's the current status (and planned next
step) of this last call? It seems those who ha
At Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:20:22 -0700,
ext Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Title : Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
> Author(s) : J. Abley, et al.
> Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt
> Pages : 9
> Date
On 6-Jul-2007, at 18:48, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On 7/6/07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with Tony, this is pure hysteria, and this effort should
be killed.
yes.
OK, so just to be clear, you're commenting on an earlier
determination of consensus by the wg ch
> > I agree with Tony, this is pure hysteria, and this effort should be killed.
>
> yes.
in this case, it is good to be a bit of paranoid. the level of
"paranoid"ness differs by person/standpoint.
minor nit (i sound like jinmei):
in RFC1883/2460 terminology "forw
On 7/6/07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with Tony, this is pure hysteria, and this effort should be killed.
yes.
thanks.
-Chris
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Req
hristopher Morrow'
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: 'IPv6 WG'
> Asunto: RE: IPv6 WG Last Call:
>
> Processing RH0 does not mean a host acts as a bounce point. If a node
> decides to forward traffic it is a router. A host can properly process an
> RH0 packet and
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Abley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:55 AM
> To: Christopher Morrow
> Cc: IPv6 WG
> Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
>
>
> On 6-Jul-2007, at 00:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > I hesitate to
[Note that I am not replying out of a desire to engage in advocacy;
you should read this more as editorial summaries of discussions that
have already happened here when the questions you raised were asked
before.]
On 6-Jul-2007, at 10:46, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I recognize that a host
On 7/6/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6-Jul-2007, at 00:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I hesitate to get rid or something because of this sole reason, I
> think another answer would be to make paying attention to it just
> optional for routing gear (or all things, honestly I reall
On 6-Jul-2007, at 00:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I hesitate to get rid or something because of this sole reason, I
think another answer would be to make paying attention to it just
optional for routing gear (or all things, honestly I really only care
about routing gear, and so does this draft
On 7/5/07, Vishwas Manral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Chris,
I think the general view was that RH0, can be deprecated and a new
more secure Routing Header can be used to get the functionality for
required.
So, sure... my fear is that lots of baked code/hardware today is going
to do 'funny th
Hi Chris,
I think the general view was that RH0, can be deprecated and a new
more secure Routing Header can be used to get the functionality for
required.
I have put a draft for the checks required, in any such header. I
intend to modify the draft to take care of introducing the new Routing
Head
On 7/2/07, Rémi Denis-Courmont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le jeudi 28 juin 2007, ext Bob Hinden a écrit :
> This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing
>
> Title : Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
> Author(s) : J. Abley, et al.
>
Le jeudi 28 juin 2007, ext Bob Hinden a écrit :
> This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing
>
> Title : Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
> Author(s) : J. Abley, et al.
> Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt
>
I support the promotion of draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt to a Proposed
Standard.
IMO the editor and author(s) did an exceptionally good job in distilling our
many and often somewhat divergent comments into the document we're considering.
The above having been said, I'd like to share one
Ship it.
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
(Yes, it's my first post, but I thought it would be good to establish early
on a track record of keeping on-topic and moving things in a positive
direction...)
I've read the draft, and the CanSecWest slides that it references.
The network nodes I've worked on have deployed filters to prevent RH0
a
If that's the only implication, I'm not sure it's worth
adding. It's a bit worrisome for future interoperability
(i.e. we shouldn't use this to add flags which will cause
failures if they are ignored).
Brian
On 2007-06-22 16:02, Brian Haberman wrote:
I would say that it if a node does not s
I would say that it if a node does not support this new option, it will
probably not support any new functionality using the extended bit field.
I am rather neutral on whether adding such text is necessary.
Regards,
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Sorry to be slightly late...
>
> I note that
Sorry to be slightly late...
I note that 2461bis says that unrecognized options MUST
be ignored. So that means that back-level implementations
will ignore any flag bits sent with this new option. Does
that have any side-effects that should be noted?
Brian
---
Hi Brian and Bob,
I went through the latest version of this document. It is concise and
well written. I would just like a new verification step to be added to
the receiving algorithm in Section 4.
This is the current text
" Upon reception, a receiver processing NDP messages containing thi
ary 24, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: IPv6 WG
> Cc: Bob Hinden
> Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call: 13.txt>
>
> All,
> The WG Last Call has passed on this with two substantive
comments.
> The following is the proposed changes to -13 to address them. Please
> voice
> your
I agree with the changes too
Ron
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
David Malone
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:33
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: Bob Hinden; IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:24:59PM -0500, Brian
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:24:59PM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> The WG Last Call has passed on this with two substantive comments.
> The following is the proposed changes to -13 to address them. Please
> voice your support or disagreement with these changes.
Looks good to me too.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Brian Haberman wrote:
The WG Last Call has passed on this with two substantive comments.
The following is the proposed changes to -13 to address them. Please voice
your support or disagreement with these changes.
I'm fine with these changes.
1. Length of appended MD5
All,
The WG Last Call has passed on this with two substantive comments.
The following is the proposed changes to -13 to address them. Please
voice
your support or disagreement with these changes.
1. Length of appended MD5 hash value:
OLD:
Compute the MD5 hash [7] of the firs
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:37:20 -0400,
> "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I will disagree restricting the usage of this protocol to Link Local only.
> This is an helpful
> tool when managing networks.
> Adding a warning statement in the security section to recommend filtering
.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Francis Dupont
Sent: Wed 9/21/2005 2:50 AM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
I would like to solicit opinions from the working group on the
suggestions above.
=> I've always used the prot
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
In the light of the previous discussion I had with Ron on this subject,
it occurs to me that it would address Ron's issue if responders joined
both the old 32 bit and the Solicited Node related multicast addresses.
Queriers that are worried about real time i
20, 2005 13:13
To: IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 2:08, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing:
Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
Author(s)
Elwyn Davies wrote:
Some comments:
<>
s6.4.1: [wish list] It occurs to me with the mention of tunnels that a
Qtype to find out about the addresses associated with (e.g.)
configured tunnels would be useful (v6 in v4 for example).
Brian asked me to propose some text for this. Here is my su
Brian Haberman wrote:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 2:08, Pekka Savola wrote:
<>
Specifically, I'm very concerned about its use with global addresses,
over
the Internet. This has a potential to turn into a kitchen sink
protocol,
which can be used to do query anything at all from a random node.
Thi
I would like to solicit opinions from the working group on the
suggestions above.
=> I've always used the protocol for destinations on the link so
I have not operational issue with the restriction but for future
usage I believe it should be better to restrict only to the site
(the problem i
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Brian Haberman wrote:
I would like to solicit opinions from the working group on the suggestions
above. Specifically, the proposal would render existing implementations
non-conformant to the spec. The primary goal of this work has been to
document what the existing code bas
PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 13:13
To: IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 2:08, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 2:08, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing:
Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
Author(s) : M. Crawford, B. Haberman
Filename: draft-ietf-ip
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing:
Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
Author(s) : M. Crawford, B. Haberman
Filename: draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-12.txt
Pages
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:39:55 -0700,
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing:
> Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
> Author(s) : M. Crawford, B. Haberman
> Filename: dr
PS
s7: The IANA considerations should refer to the IANA considerations in 2463bis
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-07.txt).
Some comments:
Substantive:
s4: Code 1 bullet point: The 'Supported Qtypes' query disappeared from
the rest of the memo some time ago.
s5: para 5: Is the intended effect of t
Some comments:
Substantive:
s4: Code 1 bullet point: The 'Supported Qtypes' query disappeared from
the rest of the memo some time ago.
s5: para 5: Is the intended effect of the last sentence (defaulting to
accepting all link-local multicast addresses that have been joined) that
sending a NOO
A response to an old message, but I'm doing so since this was covered
in today's meeting...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:34:26 -0700,
> Fred Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "As much of invoking packet as will fit without the
>ICMPv6 packet exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU"
> (A vari
D] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
ext Fred Templin
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt
Brian,
Sorry to come in so late with this, but I have a comment on
this document. In several diagra
Brian,
Sorry to come in so late with this, but I have a comment on
this document. In several diagrams, we see the phrase:
"As much of invoking packet as will fit without the
ICMPv6 packet exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU"
(A variation of this phrase also appears in section 2.4 (c),
accompanied by
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:13:04PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > This document is being re-cycled at Draft Standard. The last call
> > will end on May 18, 2004.
Hmm - that's what I get for not monitoring the list all the time...
One day late for last c
Pekka,
> Please consider my mail earlier today on IANA Considerations as part
> of WG LC. That part needs a lot more baking, I fear.
Bob has already replied to the other mail. So I would skip this
part.
> Further, my earlier issue still stands -- I'd prefer to remove an
> unimplemented ICMP so
All,
The last call actually ends on June 18, 2004 not May 18.
Regards,
Brian
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
This starts a 2-week IPv6 Working Group Last Call on:
Title : Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)for the
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specificati
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
> This starts a 2-week IPv6 Working Group Last Call on:
>
> Title : Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)for the
>Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
> Author(s) : A. Conta, S. Deering
> Fil
47 matches
Mail list logo
