[OPSAWG]Re: IPR POLL: Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Oliver On 1/6/25 7:20 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Hello, authors and contributorsdraft-gasser-opsawg-prefix-lengths (and the WG at large).  Ahead of WG a

[OPSAWG]Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths

Thanks, John and Vasilis, we'll make sure to add those considerations to the draft! Cheers, Oliver On 1/27/25 7:38 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Vasilis Giotsas said: -=-=-=-=-=- I'm also supportive of this draft, I think it can be very useful if widely adopted. One issue that s

[OPSAWG]Re: Comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths

bunch of references Cheers, Oliver On 3/21/25 1:05 PM, Oliver Gasser wrote: Thanks for the valuable suggestions, John! We will look into incorporating them into the next revision. Cheers, Oliver On 3/17/25 7:39 AM, John R Levine wrote: As I said at the mic, I believe this will be very usef

[OPSAWG]Re: Comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths

Great catch, John! I've fixed those nits in I-D version 03. Cheers, Oliver On 4/16/25 9:30 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Oliver Gasser said: We have now published -02, which incorporates John's comments and some more changes, mainly: - Added third field in the CSV file

[OPSAWG]Re: Comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths

Thanks for the valuable suggestions, John! We will look into incorporating them into the next revision. Cheers, Oliver On 3/17/25 7:39 AM, John R Levine wrote: As I said at the mic, I believe this will be very useful to help mail providers process IPv6 mail and is close to done. Minor sugge

[OPSAWG]Re: WGLC for Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths-05, draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths

I've now published a new revision of the draft incorporating Joe's feedback. Cheers, Oliver On 6/13/25 5:18 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Yes, I am. Less ambiguity that way. Joe — PGP Key : https://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc On Jun 12, 2025, at 22:58, Oliver Gasser wrote: T

[OPSAWG]Re: WGLC for Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths-05, draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths

Thanks, Joe for reading the I-D in detail! Just to confirm: Are you suggesting to disallow empty fields and instead always provide all fields explicitly? I.e. enforcing notation in Section 3.1: 2001:db8::/32,56,1 192.0.2.0/24,32,1 And the following notation in Section 3.2: 192.0.2.0/24,24,4

[OPSAWG]Re: IPR POLL: draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths: Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Oliver On 6/3/25 3:00 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Hello, authors and contributorsdraft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths (and the WG at large).  Ahead of WG last c

[OPSAWG]Re: nits to fix, WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths

Hi John, Thanks for identifying those nits! More comments about them inline. On 5/31/25 8:39 PM, John R. Levine wrote: While working on the shepherd writeup I found some nits that the authors should address. 192.0.0.0/22 used as an example network, but only 192.0.2.0/24 is reserved for examp

[OPSAWG]Re: Review, Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths-02.txt

..@ietf.org Reply-To: opsawg@ietf.org To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org CC: opsawg@ietf.org Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths-02.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF. Title: Publishing End-Site P

[OPSAWG]Re: nits to fix, WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths

I've now removed the reference and submitted version 05 of the I-D with the fixes applied. Cheers, Oliver On 6/5/25 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote: We refer to RFC 4180 ("Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-Separated Values (CSV) Files") when stating that prefixlen files are CSV files. Should we