Re: [apps-review] [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

Joel Jaeggli <> Tue, 31 May 2011 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD9EE07BD; Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.088
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.510, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0MnKzUIu4+iS; Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B370E0798; Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4V70NGI011412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 May 2011 07:00:31 GMT (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6--46976651
From: Joel Jaeggli <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:21 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <20110530154841.GM45955@Space.Net> <> <> <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 ( []); Tue, 31 May 2011 07:00:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:08:56 -0700
Cc: IETF Discussion <>, "" <>, Dave Crocker <>, Gert Doering <>, Apps Review <>
Subject: Re: [apps-review] [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 07:00:49 -0000

On May 30, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli <> wrote:
> But you've contributed to this document, so have others from that list.
> I don't want to contribute to the document because - in my opinion, and speaking only for myself - I don't think it can be made into a balanced assessment of the issue without major changes.

I do things that the ietf says are a bad idea all the time, I take the concerns expressed in informational documents that I've read under-advisement when I do so.

> Since a) I don't have even a fraction of the time I would need to actually contribute said changes, b) the document is already in an advanced state of the IETF process, and c) it doesn't matter so much what the document ends up saying, because most of the organizations for whom this is an issue have already looked at the data and recognized that they have no alternative, I was simply steering clear of the document entirely.
> It's true that I have pointed out things I think are incorrect. But I did not view these as contributions, more as offering occasional token opposition lest silence be interpreted as assent. :-) But perhaps you're right and I should not comment on it at all.
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo