Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:06:28 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Advanced Sockets API for IPv6
	Author(s)	: R. Stevens, M. Thomas, E. Nordmark, T. Jinmei
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt
	Pages		: 79
	Date		: 28-Nov-01
	
A separate specification [RFC-2553] contain changes to the sockets
API to support IP version 6.  Those changes are for TCP and UDP-based
applications and will support most end-user applications in use
today: Telnet and FTP clients and servers, HTTP clients and servers,
and the like.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Vladislav Yasevich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:43:21 -0500

So far, all my attempts to see this draft resulted in a "This
draft has been deleted" message.

Did they new draft get submitted?

Thanks
-vlad

[email-masked] wrote:
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                     Access-Type: anon-ftp
>                            Site: ftp.ietf.org
>    Link to Document   Directory: internet-drafts
>                            Name: draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt
>                            Type: text/plain

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladislav Yasevich		Tel: (603) 884-1079
Compaq Computer Corp.		Fax: (435) 514-6884
110 Spit Brook Rd ZK03-3/T07
Nashua, NH 03062
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:01:32 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:43:21 -0500, 
>>>>> Vladislav Yasevich <[email-masked]> said:

> Did they new draft get submitted?

Since the file of the URL does not seem to have been updated and I've
got a couple of questions about the latest version, I've put the
version that I submitted at the following URL:

http://www.kame.net/~jinmei/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt

Please refer to this version until the official file is ready.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Lilian Fernandes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:45:09 -0600 (CST)

Is this draft going to RFC status anytime soon? A lot of the basic
behavior has changed between versions 02 and 03.

Would you say that version 03 is a fairly stabilized draft?

Thanks,
Lilian

> 					[email-masked]

_____________________________________________________________________

Lilian Fernandes
AIX TCP/IP Development - IBM Austin
Tel: 512-838-7966	Fax: 512-838-3509

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 00:09:28 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:45:09 -0600 (CST), 
>>>>> Lilian Fernandes <[email-masked]> said:

> behavior has changed between versions 02 and 03.

Most of them are clarifications on obscure stuff in the former drafts
and results of solving open issues.  I believe the current spec is
still quite compatible with the former behavior in practical point of
view.

I admit, however, that some of the changes are controversial and that
some of them surely break the backward compatibility.  I'd like to
discuss the issues in the ML and (if we have time) in Salt Lake City.

> Would you say that version 03 is a fairly stabilized draft?

I'm not sure how I can answer the question, but at least I don't think
this can be the last version to the RFC status due to the
controversial points above.  But, the basic concept in this revision
is:

  - clarify all obscure points in the former spec
  - remove all definitions and descriptions related to on-going stuff
    (since they can delay the fix of this API)
  - no new stuff is not included (nor will be in the future versions)
  - fix/change the behaviors which were known to be suitable to the
    other standard specs and implementation experiences (this part
    should be the most controversial point, and thus I tried to keep
    the effect of the changes as small as possible)

My plan is to concentrate on the controversial stuff, to reach
consensus, and to fix the API, in the next revision of the draft.

					JINMEI, Tatuya