Fred,
RFC 2743 specifies a different kind of encapsulation.
It's clear that we disagree on this point. So, why don't we look to the rest of
the WG and defer to their will.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:32 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected]; intarea-
> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:04 PM
> > To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> >
> > What value would that citation add?
>
> RFC2473 already specifies IPv6 encapsulation, decapsulation, packet size
> issues etc. in detail. The RFC2473 text should therefore be cited normatively,
> and your document should only say how it is different and why.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> [email protected]
>
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:56 PM
> > > To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected];
> > > intarea- [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for
> > > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> > >
> > > Hi Ron and Carlos,
> > >
> > > I will change my "updates RFC2473" to "should cite RFC2473". That
> > > RFC already supports encapsulation of GRE in IPv6 and should be cited as
> such.
> > >
> > > Thanks - Fred
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:30 AM
> > > > To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos;
> > > > [email protected];
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for
> > > > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> > > >
> > > > Fred,
> > > >
> > > > If the current document were published tomorrow, would RFC 2473
> > > > implementation have to change in order to remain RFC 2473
> > > > compliant? If
> > > so, how? If not, the current document does not update RFC 2473.
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:54 PM
> > > > > To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > > > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos;
> > > > > [email protected];
> > > > > intarea- [email protected]
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for
> > > > > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Ron,
> > > > >
> > > > > RFC2784 punts on IPv6. From Section 9:
> > > > >
> > > > > > o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently
> > > > > > deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload
> > > > > > protocol is not included in the currently deployed versions of
> > > > > > GRE.
> > > > >
> > > > > RFC2784 should have cited RFC2473 as the normative reference for
> > > > > generic encapsulation in IPv6 but didn't. But, that does not
> > > > > mean that your document should make the same omission.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks - Fred
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:26 AM
> > > > > > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Templin, Fred L
> > > > > > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos;
> > > > > > [email protected];
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for
> > > > > > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RFC 2784 doesn't update RFC 2473. This is because RFC 2784
> > > > > > doesn't levy
> > > > > any new requirements upon RFC 2473 implementations.
> > > > > > Implementations that were RFC 2473 compliant the day before
> > > > > > RFC
> > > > > > 2784 was published remained compliant the day after RFC 2784
> > > > > > was
> > > published.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Likewise, the current draft doesn't update RFC 2473. This is
> > > > > > because the current draft doesn't levy any new requirements
> > > > > > upon RFC
> > > > > > 2473 implementations. Implementations that are RFC 2473
> > > > > > compliant today will remain compliant the day after the current
> draft is published.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On an even higher level note, RFC2473 already specifies
> > > > > > > generic encapsulation within IPv6 which implicitly includes
> > > > > > > GRE. So, if this document goes through it needs to say that it
> updates RFC2473.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks ? Fred
> > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
