[{"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

I think the first bullet under the definition of IPv6-Only Capable Endpoints ought to be more positive:

\n

s/\"An endpoint capable of communicating only with a limited set of endpoints, all of which are available over IPv6.\"

\n

/\"An endpoint which can only communicate with endpoints available over IPv6\"/

\n

I'll issue a PR

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:14:53Z"}, {"author": "John Scudder", "text": "

This conversation makes me think the statement fails the definition of SHOULD anyway...

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:20:46Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

You're right, John. Glad Lorenzo pointed this out.

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:21:03Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

Not sure people can tell where my slides ended and Jen's slides began

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:21:43Z"}, {"author": "Tim Chown", "text": "

\"REALLY SHOULD BE\"

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:25:17Z"}, {"author": "John Scudder", "text": "

^ https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:27:02Z"}, {"author": "John Scudder", "text": "

For a second I thought Jen's voice had frozen, then I realized someone was talking without using a mic. ;-(

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:33:17Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

I'm noting this 5-tuple discussion in the GitHub

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:35:10Z"}, {"author": "Warren Kumari", "text": "

Apolopgies, I hadn't seen tht the queue was locked...

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:36:29Z"}, {"author": "Warren Kumari", "text": "

s/seen/noticed/

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:36:42Z"}, {"author": "John Scudder", "text": "

AFAIK the thing following \"bis\" is \"ter\".

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:42:09Z"}, {"author": "Tom Hill", "text": "

Bicester?

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:49:24Z"}, {"author": "Ron Bonica", "text": "

I'm awake now!

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:53:43Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

\"No, you're the client!\" belongs on a WG laptop sticket

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:53:47Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

sticker*

", "time": "2024-11-08T13:54:19Z"}, {"author": "Jen Linkova", "text": "

Ron: so do you have an opinion? ;)

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:09:57Z"}, {"author": "Nick Buraglio", "text": "

@tommy - I can make that happen =)

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:10:24Z"}, {"author": "Tom Hill", "text": "

Realistically gNMI could be configured to export the ND table once every minute. Or even 5 minutes, depending upon your level of required accountability (vs. the risk of someone doing something nefarious in these environments inside of 59s)

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:16:51Z"}, {"author": "Tom Hill", "text": "

Doing gNMI with an onchange config would indeed be terrifyingly unscalable

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:17:35Z"}, {"author": "Tom Hill", "text": "

Also a DoS vector

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:17:54Z"}, {"author": "Warren Kumari", "text": "

Yeah, thats what I did, and it was...

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:18:21Z"}, {"author": "Jen Linkova", "text": "

Tom: yep, security considerstions

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:18:24Z"}, {"author": "Tom Hill", "text": "

I should also correct gNMI to YANG Push, before NMOPS people hunt me down

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:19:11Z"}, {"author": "Fernando Gont", "text": "

@tim: This is PoC from quite a few years ago: https://github.com/fgont/ipv6mon

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:20:04Z"}, {"author": "Fernando Gont", "text": "

@tim: probably the only limitation is that the current (only) version supports one single interface. The good thing is that ir implements a few tricks to track all addresses, even the ones that you are not actively using.

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:21:05Z"}, {"author": "Warren Kumari", "text": "

Everytime Lorenzo says \"parity\" in this topic, I hear \"parody\"... Just saying...

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:23:32Z"}, {"author": "Warren Kumari", "text": "

\"We have parody in IPv4...\"

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:24:10Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

PK, or April Fool's draft?

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:24:21Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

@Warren

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:24:31Z"}, {"author": "Warren Kumari", "text": "

Yes....

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:24:52Z"}, {"author": "Tom Hill", "text": "

I expect we'll eventually need a certification programme for IPv6-Mostly. There will be stickers.

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:28:22Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

getting out of queue because Jen just called me out (\"this def doesn't work because...\")

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:28:33Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

aaaand back in because decentralized definitions aren't fun

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:29:15Z"}, {"author": "Philipp Tiesel", "text": "

Would make sense to just copy&paste and reference

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:29:52Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

yes, future drafts ought to be able to say \"IPv6-only as defined in RFCxxxxx (yes, it will be five digits)\"

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:30:58Z"}, {"author": "Ryo Yanagida", "text": "

that means as more documents are published needing more definitions, that RFCx needs to be updated too I guess

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:34:01Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

Probably, but centralized terminology is sooo useful in both standards space and elsewhere.

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:34:30Z"}, {"author": "XiPeng Xiao", "text": "

No. If we clearly define the scope, I believe the definition can remain stable

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:34:49Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

DNS went through this recently, we can ask them too how they went through their process.

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:35:06Z"}, {"author": "Tobias Fiebig", "text": "

they do it frequently

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:35:28Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

and I recently used theirs, 10/10

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:35:46Z"}, {"author": "Ryo Yanagida", "text": "

XiPeng Xiao said:

\n
\n

No. If we clearly define the scope, I believe the definition can remain stable

\n
\n

Sure, but I suspect an additional scope/term might need to be added too. Which, I think is fine. One place to refer to a terms definition, sounds sensible.

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:35:53Z"}, {"author": "David Lamparter", "text": "

Sorry for my rambling, got a case of Friday afternoon brain

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:38:58Z"}, {"author": "Ryo Yanagida", "text": "

End of a long-long week.

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:39:14Z"}, {"author": "Ryo Yanagida", "text": "

Clearly _if_ this WG has many documents that have many shared terms that are conflicting, that in itself is a problem no?

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:39:57Z"}, {"author": "XiPeng Xiao", "text": "

yes, this is why we should have an definition document

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:40:25Z"}, {"author": "Tom Hill", "text": "

Should I be offended by that routing people comment, Tobias? :joy:

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:40:33Z"}, {"author": "Tobias Fiebig", "text": "

Drafts have versions

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:41:32Z"}, {"author": "Tobias Fiebig", "text": "

@tom I am one of them myself ;-P

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:41:43Z"}, {"author": "Tim Chown", "text": "

stick it in node requirements? as we'll use the language in there

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:42:04Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

@Ryo exactly that, yes

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:42:32Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

most recently re-defined in 2017*

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:43:44Z"}, {"author": "Ryo Yanagida", "text": "

So \"defining terms already used in other document is dangerous\" is while true, probably not a reason to 'not to do it' I guess.

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:44:01Z"}, {"author": "Eduard V", "text": "

is standard document for v6ops?

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:56:21Z"}, {"author": "Tommy Jensen", "text": "

I've never seen poll results like this before

", "time": "2024-11-08T14:57:09Z"}, {"author": "Jen Linkova", "text": "

7915 is standard, published by v6ops

", "time": "2024-11-08T15:03:44Z"}]