[rpd] Proposal: Clarification on temporary resource usage

Mon Apr 22 06:24:20 UTC 2019

I believe the duration and the decision to send something to WGLC is in the hands of the co-chairs.

However, at the end of the period declared for WGLC, I would find it highly irregular if the co-chairs
chose to treat a lack of comments as anything other than a lack of objection.

Owen

> On Apr 15, 2019, at 23:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
>  
> I agree that it shouldn’t be necessary, but the co-chairs stated that the WGLC, according to RFC2418 is at the discretion of the WG chairs.
>  
> V6ops has been this way at least the last few years.
>  
> El 16/4/19 4:13, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> escribió:
>  
>  
> 
> 
>> On Apr 15, 2019, at 08:53 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>>  
>> Somehow, I agree with Andrew.
>>  
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/>
>>  
>> is already in the Editor Queue, so it is a matter of a few days or weeks that it will have an RFC number.
>>  
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/>
>>  
>> Is now in IETF v6ops Working Group Last Call, since last week. ***Nobody**** said this is good or bad (even if it is a Working Group document and that means that previously the WG adopted it) … same problem as we have here with policy proposals. It may even happen that because nobody goes to the v6ops mailing list to say “it is a good document” or “I’m missing this or that” or “correct this because it is wrong”, the document just dies. Unfortunate, but is the bad thing of “consensus” that not everybody speaks up, even if they may agree with something.
>  
> This seems odd to me in the face of the IETF definition of “rough consensus” which focuses not on support, but on a lack of sustained opposition.
>  
> Owen
> 
> 
>>  
>> So, taking the opportunity … if you believe that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/>
>> Provides a good guidance for deploying NAT64/464XLAT, please, register at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/>, and say that you support that document.
>>  
>> Here is the relevant email:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/h-c-v936g56uWcaB3dndFnouPt8 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/h-c-v936g56uWcaB3dndFnouPt8>
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> El 15/4/19 17:40, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> escribió:
>>  
>> Willy,
>>  
>> Heh – at the speed the IETF works – if you wait for formal RFC’s these days – you’ll be waiting a hell of a long time.
>>  
>> TACACS – which has been around for 20+ years – is a draft
>> Segment routing – which is being more and more used – is a draft
>> Segment routing BGP extensions – is a draft 
>>  
>> It’s a long long list of very much production technologies 
>>  
>> The draft tag – doesn’t mean much these days
>>  
>> Andrew
>>  
>>  
>> From: Willy Manga <mangawilly at gmail.com <mailto:mangawilly at gmail.com>> 
>> Sent: Sunday, 14 April 2019 23:51
>> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal: Clarification on temporary resource usage
>>  
>> Hi Jordi,
>> 
>> On 21/12/2018 18:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > You may want to add the following references (the first one will become, hopefully soon, an RFC):
>> > - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/>
>> > - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment/>
>> 
>> I'd love to include them but right now they are still in the draft
>> section. It is better to mention documents elected as RFC in the CPM in
>> my humble opinion.
>> 
>> If they get approval before the end of the discussion on this proposal,
>> they will surely be included.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Willy Manga
>> @ongolaboy
>> https://ongola.blogspot.com/ <https://ongola.blogspot.com/>
>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
>> The IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190421/fe6d0999/attachment-0001.html>