Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 03 September 2016 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C65812B024 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o_prCbll9Kvl for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 06:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF37F12B011 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 06:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id l131so6819690lfl.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 06:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sHxYCBTRxloIjFO1A5gn1fEUGP/TGAY1fyqnEq0icjc=; b=BKgqlAGYDlduLOG7M3HY9Lp5QlDhZh7T+gzKqOF0Em0zL0rhehAgYP7geN8RUoiC1z aQmYvfiNCT2QK5/g0ZqK+t9DJcjCEJx3yI4iqjzszT0w7cN4W3q7CLLSqQLhhkMB4Eda Nlfk/FQ6DE/S0sZwlRQlEHeyZuUKM7YZejY+NodVEKJYhTeGgMun9cjMhSuJrcdL04qA Bm33aJp3sdJzcbGx1JYRFcLeCEkoHWVA8XdeC+S3qe/EMcuakq+LnXfVfvQFMNTn6DIE D1NPwqjGoys14+UolitG5lfq+ohIXnQ5HQOpUMjFHxjMe/fNwZ06ybIlfAXX9VEHCXhw 9KzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sHxYCBTRxloIjFO1A5gn1fEUGP/TGAY1fyqnEq0icjc=; b=ZvHw9O6KfbT5Ave6DdfV6WmlIaOc5m9MztRM+3mppGcTE8tJlDWSJevX/oSyMFW5XP NKTB2sTLJyGCKbHeML77b72D1VmT+TrPgp5WgIEhi1NrkJKQ+B41yBqS5WaaxK8SW8mq 4h38XkBmbCx2W50fM4utNm0p3MQlCWwpJ8LWSe6Aq8hoO//GsaSMIpgBDBhIo55LlXUP hRuxo0XJSOuN2wJoFLf4iNN3AAMJpvSIvmaulZZABKGbkwwavdbUeoUU0VWJ9mqzS+HV Ac7PgSp6L4/fHq+oVn29wVyxOuMJDd39QFHMJcFtseSfn+27I6Sx/gBdacA/MO6OzlGY eLqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNlS7DtCGa5wUzDT/Q/n3bmHy/yabmCOnR4RFpXpdgjLvn43SNNkw2yXk/2K02SwTgYSkqvsaNja9oFgA==
X-Received: by 10.25.131.150 with SMTP id f144mr7068710lfd.53.1472908938993; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 06:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 06:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqeX5iAmGupySR=h3NW3NbSiT3rqD+Qh-d_i+iO8k90Yjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <58B66897-2F0D-4916-AF5A-42D5DC172DE5@cisco.com> <CAJE_bqeX5iAmGupySR=h3NW3NbSiT3rqD+Qh-d_i+iO8k90Yjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:21:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=F4PhxRC75Rk6NGN3PGEXOg3-SC9GPy0Huv6QjTvziRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f20b81879f4053b9a568e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/hrH43qc-YECWbgi6CsWlh25IPO4>
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:22:23 -0000

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.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> At Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:23:13 -0400,
> Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > We have some detailed technical reviews.  What we *really* need now
> > are people to just read it and say:
> >
> >   "I think this draft should move forward".
> >
> > That's all you have to do.  Any review would be nice, but we really
> > just need people to read it and send in email that says "move this
> > forward".
>
> I feel sorry that I simply couldn't find time to read this big
> document and provide useful feedback, but I also feel nervous by
> seeing this action...it's hard to believe that if someone reads this
> size of complicated technical document and can just say "it should
> move forward".  Even after getting reviews and revised, it's quite
> likely for every new reader to find at least one or a few non-trivial
> issues.  So, if the only response to the call is just "move forward",
> I wonder if it's really a careful read.  And, now, if we move forward
> just by counting a certain number of 'yes', does that mean something?
> If we think we've already got sufficient level of technical reviews,
> isn't it itself enough to move forward (to which I wouldn't be
> opposed)?  If not, counting more simple "move forward" responses just
> as a prerequisite for moving forward doesn't seem to be a good way to
> move forward.
>
> Just my two cents.  Again, I'm sorry I cannot be more productive...
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>