Those of us who have worked on avian carriers for IPv6 have a great distaste for any lip service paid to cats, as we do not like it at all when packet loss is caused by feline intervention. At the very least, the Security Considerations must discuss this issue, which is only referred to very
indirectly in RFC6214. It probably also applies to RFC1149 and RFC2549.
Regards
Brian
On 24-Nov-21 08:39, Warren Kumari wrote:
Section 4 was added purely because Nick Hilliard said that he would
DoS the last call process if I didn't include his text; in classic
IETF fashion I blustered for a while, before realizing that I don't
actually care, and adding the text in the interests of moving the
document along. If you object to the section, please take it up with
Nick.
If you are not able to reach some sort of agreement / compromise with
Nick, we can discuss having an interim meeting, potentially with some
representation from the feline community. W
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx
<mailto:lear@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
I am, sorry, Warren, but I personally cannot support this draft
because Section 4 offends me. I do, however, want to commend you for
the number of revisions you have made.
Eliot
On 22.11.21 21:09, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:19 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:nick@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
John Levine wrote on 22/11/2021 18:50:
But does anyone have any idea what this "report' might be?
draft-petrescu-v6ops-ipv6-power-ipv4?
Quick! Someone reference
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft/> :-P
W
The methodology raises questions about whether the results are
reliable enough to be quoted.
Nick
-- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused
by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
-- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by
the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
