Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt>

From: [email-masked] (Arnaud Ebalard)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:21:24 +0200

Hi,

[email-masked] writes:

> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
> consider the following document:
> - 'Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises
>    Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service'
>   <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2010-09-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

I posted a review of the draft on v6ops ML more than 2 months ago (Thu,
15 Jul 2010), with substantial comments:

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg04815.html

Some of those are important for IPsec and MIPv6 to work. They were
acknowledged privately as valid.

Those comments were pointed again by Julien Laganier on the list (13 Sep
2010) a week ago:

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg05349.html

I understand those comments are substantial but they address valid
issues, were provided a long time ago, text was proposed for some of
them and even picture clarify the issues.

Cheers,

a+

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:42:35 -0700

> them and even picture clarify the issues.

Chair has let me know that I shouldn't hesitate to post a new revision of the draft with the proposed amendments.

Sorry for the confusion and the delay, and thank you very much for the reminder of the where to find the previous messages.  That will save me the hassle of digging them out of my copious archives.

I'll send Arnaud and Julien a preview of the forthcoming revision before I post it, just to be sure I've got it basically right.  Hopefully, that revision will come out in the next couple of days-- after I'm done being viciously flensed-- figuratively speaking-- by the simultaneous, yet totally reasonable, demands of two competing product managers, each with their own existential crises officially assigned as my drop-everything ship-or-die top priority.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

---

From: [email-masked] (Arnaud Ebalard)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:23:28 +0200

Hi,

james woodyatt <[email-masked]> writes:

> Chair has let me know that I shouldn't hesitate to post a new revision
> of the draft with the proposed amendments. 
>
> Sorry for the confusion and the delay, and thank you very much for the
> reminder of the where to find the previous messages.  That will save
> me the hassle of digging them out of my copious archives. 
>
> I'll send Arnaud and Julien a preview of the forthcoming revision
> before I post it, just to be sure I've got it basically right.
> Hopefully, that revision will come out in the next couple of days--
> after I'm done being viciously flensed-- figuratively speaking-- by
> the simultaneous, yet totally reasonable, demands of two competing
> product managers, each with their own existential crises officially
> assigned as my drop-everything ship-or-die top priority.

Thanks for your effort James. I will try and reread version 13 as soon
as you send it. Don't hesitate if you have questions or need some help.

Cheers,

a+