[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: 6MAN: Working group last call on RFC2460bis, RFC1981bis and RFC4291bis
From:       otroan () employees ! org
Date:       2016-06-20 18:34:30
Message-ID: 6CBE1844-6136-4F0A-BBAE-E72F26823A01 () employees ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Thanks a lot Brian.

I have added the reference to default-iid issue to the tracker.
The current list is here:
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/report/1

Let me know if you think there are other outstanding issues that I missed.

Best regards,
Ole


> On 16 Jun 2016, at 01:01, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 30/05/2016 20:15, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
> 
> Slightly late, here are my comments after re-reading these drafts.
> I have systematically reviewed the changes in each version since
> this exercise started. Most of my issues have been dealt with in
> previous versions, so I don't have much new to say.
> 
> One general comment: the authors have chosen to avoid upper case
> normative keywords. I understand this choice, but I expect it will be
> brought up at IETF Last Call or IESG review by somebody. It will be
> worth justifying this choice in the writeup, I think.
> 
> ...
>> Htmlized:    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-04
> 
> I'm happy with this version. I think it expresses the parts of RFC2460 that
> have been confirmed to be interoperable by years of running code. There are
> still some subtle changes being discussed around extension header insertion and
> HbH option processing, however. I think we are very close to consensus now,
> but one more release of the I-D is needed for those points.
> 
> ...
>> Htmlized:    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-02
> 
> I'm happy with this version. I think that the reference to PLPMTUD is
> correctly formulated for use in an Internet Standard.
> 
> ...
>> Htmlized:   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-02
> 
> I'm happy with this version. I think it correctly treads a narrow line about
> IIDs in a way that is suitable for an Internet Standard.
> 
> (I have raised a definitional issue about 'global' scope, but I don't
> think the text in 4291bis needs changing because of this.)
> 
> However, I believe that we need to get draft-ietf-6man-default-iids
> to the IESG at the same time. Having it referenced as a draft in 4291bis
> is inappropriate, even though it's informational. If that isn't possible,
> I think the reference should be removed.
> 
>> as Internet Standards. Substantive comments and statements of support
>> for publishing these document should be directed to the mailing
>> list.
> 
> So, consider this a statement of support once the minor points mentioned
> above have been resolved.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter


["signature.asc" (signature.asc)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXaDc5AAoJED4aXnjSQuKWZXAH/jqbMDmmwB9EfLy8ogsAx13V
cmN8yI4VjRdit6flzP3cKf8Cp5aDBH6ZgTV1p6AVlHQ6qcdUo4w9Rgte8nYocPov
sTofnlNn0Tt2EGhLCKLOZEKnuk2RM3Iro3NZGIg56Kekvu+rvbzDb6xkXB3HlbGl
J5NgTbdBCdJTnxKT0/ggqgOyzerRClX6kFH8BBv9GmkEbawtRVYbGRr+lhbhrMf3
oh3H8rVF6uLLUwoaL2mAnOTcDGBgp32upQW58PkeejzFETn1xGr5qkgQM87p9eYj
3aF+3yP6TVjUg9xF98pFcCk/IfxlXoNQTmQmuEgzX+SjYBmqHoRQt8U/mn3bjOU=
=0pTH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]