Looking at archives was quicker than expected. Unless the subject got changed, the only comments I see from last July are [adding folks who replied in email snippet for clarification]:
— On 8 July 2016 at 18:36, Erik Kline <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Section 2.1.2 is far too permissive for my tastes. We need to be able >>> to say that ULA+IPv6 NAT is NOT RECOMMENDED by the IETF. >> >> [Eric Vyncke] I changed the end of the section 2.1.2 to reflect this. >> Albeit, I am >> unsure whether there is a clear statement by the IETF about not using ULA >> + NPTv6 (and I would LOVE to see such a statement) > > [EK] Then please go ahead and make that statement in your document. > > I, for one, will help defend it. :-) [Lorenzo +1’d this] [Mark Smith] Depending on an experimental RFC for your security sounds like a really bad idea to me! —— I’d love to have more folks weigh in on this topic so that authors can get group consensus. - merike > On Apr 18, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Merike Kaeo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am unclear as to what the comment and/or request for change of language is. > I will look at list archives from last year to determine what the discussion > may have been but it would be useful to have some more context. I am aware > of folks using ULAs (not something I personally favor). In past versions, as > the current language was drafted, the authors were weighing heavily on > appropriate language. > > Pointers appreciated to any past thread. > > - merike > > >> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:35 AM, Erik Kline <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Didn't we already have a bunch of discussion about this in v6ops and work >> very carefully to come to text? >> >> On 18 April 2017 at 16:34, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Relaying message to WGLC discussion alias >> >> >> >> G/ >> >> >> >> From: v6ops <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on >> behalf of Erik Kline <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 09:30 >> To: Gunter Van De Velde <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, 6man <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: [ALU] Re: [v6ops] Fwd: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6 >> >> >> >> 2.1.2. Use of ULAs >> >> >> >> Still? Really? >> >> >> >> On 18 April 2017 at 16:18, Gunter Van De Velde >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Dear 6man, v6ops, >> >> >> >> Due to the IPv6 focus of "draft-ietf-opsec-v6" the OPSEC WGLC for this >> document may be of interest to both 6man as v6ops. >> >> >> >> Please send your feedback to OPSEC email list, where discussion around this >> document should take place. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> G/ >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >> From: Gunter Van De Velde <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> Subject: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6 >> >> Date: 12 April 2017 at 09:39:28 GMT+2 >> >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> This is to open a two week WGLC for >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6>. >> >> If you have not read it, please do so now. You may send nits to the author, >> but substantive discussion should go to the list. >> >> >> >> >> I will close the call on 26 April 2017 >> >> >> >> >> G/ >> >> Sent from iCloud >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSEC mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSEC mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
