Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

神明達哉 <> Wed, 07 September 2016 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D3612B554 for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMmibzryD1MI for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8BC12B495 for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v123so23629072qkh.2 for <>; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2zeFadcz09aT9MmeQM4plrbk3VloyJnu2jOn37V4qxs=; b=Qm95L6bKzVb6pMIKCcVCd3JXQ05+KRYYvWzw9/yXS/Z4NCKimMwfOTeFahXGvzBo0x 4vy6YJU6kfQfljKKZjonVAB4hpZLtJ/1IZh7V/QK6ebjDAAnVEPi9fXa7tod4xeG3Vrg Y7a4G5Pw61XiYyr1pXm06Bh06c89zvwlbDo8SrPfMJDY9aQqOu9UhwOSuexk1jrjP7z5 qWPHD6ZFfFpHwi1IGdG1APbAFuyvidz7SxBHPYvc5ASc5jipG0TPKl5MmMYpjYp8ibal iPG2zhhY2KH2Tzynue/r3Mm5Lrz+b6A4uFH86RsKUo/WFBEgHJc7FHV3XE/MOt74B+9w EreQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2zeFadcz09aT9MmeQM4plrbk3VloyJnu2jOn37V4qxs=; b=GBqgcLUMQHEIQp91D+zWw22wAGRVxbIdGIwVFtkDdpZ+24yRrJXRLHY/oaHI4A9zX7 r2bX9oP4tR2laKTIouPsygebG+/SwTM/kAbDuGxl+GVOBnLeNRxhcorOWuBFyGYlwV1K 3i5bqeQBz11FOv6r4hIORtUW1N1vz0DU0gFqLuGYo5QE/lF4WcovJFT4YCs+d9+9YAk9 gIeMD6uKJIJ/oDdBVa5GLNlLYKoRN/wWKkYGNulq+keWmJT9J3SxP1cB5B1LRwQN6MIE 17dUMjy7qsckjFG3BOhQSJ+I1FLH7BxzlyWEd8/7pDJUz6KDEFRBw3s24QBcs0aziZ2w oN+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwPkXK4eFW7ahy4FoegjtFyZ2gonIzuedjIkxVsn52IWpWv4mBd/mOJPva+tNJE7CwFYL/R8jZ0ynBItxA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 75mr30156933qkz.243.1473272705895; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: 神明達哉 <>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:25:05 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _NPOAEf7ykH-dxnb7gvctMmY-3E
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>, Kim Kinnear <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:25:09 -0000

At Sat, 3 Sep 2016 09:21:38 -0400,
Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> Jinmei-san, the question is, is it better to publish something that's
> basically good but has a few non-blocking issues, or to not publish it at
> all?   I too would like to see the document get more review and maybe a
> couple of interoperating implementations, but if we have to wait for the
> bis document for that, I'm okay with it.

This is the conclusion of the previous WGLC (including the original
call text)):

The last call states:

>> We will need several serious reviews of this document for it to
>> pass WGLC.

and the conclusion was:

>> But sadly (as I need to make the call as Tomek is a co-author), I
>> don’t think we’re ready to advance this document. We will try again
>> and hopefully get some more participation.

I interpreted it as it didn't pass because there were not sufficient
number of "serious reviews".  If my interpretation is correct and the
situation hasn't changed since then (I wasn't in Berlin even remotely
and the meeting minutes and the retried last call text are not very
clear on this), I would expect this latest last call is also seeking
"several serious reviews".  So it looked awkward to me that the wg now
seems to ask people for stating a one-line, lightweight "support or
not support" feedback.

According to your above comment, perhaps the sense of the bar to
advance it has been revised from "several more serious reviews" to a
few more one-line "yes" responses through a discussion that I didn't
participate in.  If so, I have no problem with that, although it would
have been nicer if that had been clarified in the revised last call
text.  If the bar hasn't changed, I personally think we are having a
due diligence issue.

In any case, I don't intend to be a blocker for this document
especially when I can't be more productive by providing a "serious
review" myself.  So I'll shut up on this with this message.

JINMEI, Tatuya