Hi,
after the mailing list discussion and the discussion at 6MAN
yesterday, I changed my ballot from a discuss to an abstain. Thank you
all for providing valuable feedback.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Lars 6man,
(Sorry about the slow turn-around here... I spent last week attending
to non-IETF business, I'm afraid. Bad time for the boss to go
skiiing...)
This document is an AD-sponsored individual submission, and is
intended for publication as an Informational RFC on the IETF stream.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, RJ Atkinson wrote:
What words would you like to see added ? and where in the draft ?
An IESG Note could be added on the front page of the draft and it
could be e.g.:
IESG Note
This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
The IETF
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, RJ Atkinson wrote:
3) I'll note that this document will NOT be an IETF RFC, will not
be on the IETF standards-track, and is not an IPv6/6MAN WG document.
This is in fact an individual submission that is proposed to be
published as a non-IETF Informational RFC. It is being
On 16 Mar 2009, at 03:53, Pekka Savola wrote:
Actually, this is being proposed as an IETF RFC (as opposed to say,
RFC-editor RFC) (you can see this by e.g. looking at the Evaluation
record in the datatracker.). It seems to be an individual submission
through an area director (Tim Polk).
On 13 Mar 2009, at 20:08, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
I have no strong opinion either for or
against assigning a new IPv6 hop-by-hop option for some walled-garden,
non-IETF protocol (except that HbH options are relatively scarce
resource - but it doesn't matter much anyway, because we wouldn't
* Rob Austein:
I think the IETF should get out of the way and let the MLS people have
their hop-by-hop option and Informational document.
As long as there's no expectation that it works on the open Internet,
sure. 8-)
IETF
I've read the I-D draft and all the discussion on this thread so far. I
support publication of this draft as an Informational RFC. We have
customers who expressed strong interest in migrating to an MLS IPv6
implementation. I suspect customers are suffering from very limited
option space in
At Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:01:54 -0400,
RJ Atkinson r...@extremenetworks.com wrote:
In the special case where a node or link is not MLS, then the edge
router facing that non-MLS link inserts/removes the labels on behalf
of those (typically MS Windows) systems -- as described in the
document.
On 12 Mar 2009, at 09:01, Pekka Savola wrote:
Could you describe why L3VPNs or such are inadequate? The discussion
in S 1.1 of draft doesn't really help much to understand what are the
actual problems with these. It discusses unwillingness to implement
L3VPNs on hosts but it's not clear why
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, RJ Atkinson wrote:
A single UDP/IP session (one example is ONC RPC, but that is
not the only example) between a pair of nodes might have
different packets with different Sensitivity Labels. This
is also described in the draft.
I took one of Lars' concerns as having
On 12 Mar 2009, at 10:24, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, RJ Atkinson wrote:
A single UDP/IP session (one example is ONC RPC, but that is
not the only example) between a pair of nodes might have
different packets with different Sensitivity Labels. This
is also described in the
David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Rob Austein wrote:
I think the IETF should get out of the way and let the MLS people have
their hop-by-hop option and Informational document.
+1
+1
Erik
IETF IPv6 working
Ok, Lars, you're asking for opinions, I will give you one. Remember,
you asked.
I think that, given how many times the IETF has added bizzare
standards track features to IPv6 in order to keep the 3G crew happy,
it is very strange to me that we should now balk at approving an
Informational
The concerns I had were resolved in the -10 version (and later). I support the
publishing of this work as an Informational RFC with the objective of
encouraging support for interoperable implementations. We will start working
the v4 to v6 transition in the community as soon as it becomes
On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Rob Austein wrote:
I think the IETF should get out of the way and let the MLS people have
their hop-by-hop option and Informational document.
+1
Regards,
-drc
IETF IPv6 working group mailing
On 5 Mar 2009, at 12:37, Lars Eggert wrote:
It would not set a precedent that the IETF is approving *all*
such proposals, but it would set the precedent that the IETF
has approved *one* such proposal.
Please forgive me, but I disagree that the above is
a well formed concern.
Permitting one
Hi,
I'm currently holding a discuss on draft-stjohns-sipso, because I
fundamentally question if this is a document the IETF should publish.
The discuss is not actionable, i.e., I don't see any way to fix the
document, so I'm deliberating what to do. I'd appreciate your thoughts
on this
On 5 Mar 2009, at 06:30, Lars Eggert wrote:
Should the IETF allocate option numbers for extensions to our
fundamental protocols (in this case, IPv6) that are targeted solely
at private walled-garden networks? Note that in addition to draft-
stjohns-sipso, we have been receiving liaison
Hi, Ran,
thanks for the timely response.
On 2009-3-5, at 16:07, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On 5 Mar 2009, at 06:30, Lars Eggert wrote:
Should the IETF allocate option numbers for extensions to our
fundamental protocols (in this case, IPv6) that are targeted solely
at private walled-garden networks?
20 matches
Mail list logo
