Hi Brian,
The issue discussed in this I-D applies each time you have to share an IPv4
address. This covers IPv4 service continuity mechanism with IPv6-only
connectivity such as: NAT64, DS-Lite, MAP-E, MAP-T and lw4o6.
There is IMHO a value in socializing the IETF BCP and help
servers/impleme
Hi Stephen,
The scope of this document is aligned with what the IETF has published in the
past in this field. A list is provided below:
1. Identify logging as an issue in address sharing: RFC 6269
2. Require address sharing to enable a logging function: RFC 6269
and RFC 6888
On 2018-04-22 22:36, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
>
> that have been considered in the IETF.
>
+ since December 2016. Typical.
--
Amelia Andersdotter
Technical Consultant, Digital Programme
ARTICLE19
www.article19.org
PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55
__
Dear all,
I have read this draft and I do not support adoption.
On 2018-04-22 21:18, Dave O'Reilly wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I hope it’s not inappropriate for me to step into this discussion, but I
> would like to respond to a few of the points that have been raised so far.
> For brevity I will in
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Dave O'Reilly wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I hope it’s not inappropriate for me to step into this discussion, but I
> would like to respond to a few of the points that have been raised so far.
> For brevity I will incorporate my responses to the various emails into a
Dear all,
I hope it’s not inappropriate for me to step into this discussion, but I would
like to respond to a few of the points that have been raised so far. For
brevity I will incorporate my responses to the various emails into a single
email.
The main point people are making:
———
FWIW I think both Brian and Stephen have raised good points here. I don't
mean to say that there isn't a problem here, but I don't think it's really the
right match for the IETF in general or for IntArea in particular to be
publishing a document on how to facilitate monitoring on legacy networ
Hi Brian,
On 22/04/18 06:31, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> However, WG adoption doesn't imply accepting the contents, only
> the topic. Actually it transforms the authors from independent actors
> into servants of the WG. So from a formal viewpoint Stephen is wrong:
> the WG can decide to completely
