Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

神明達哉 <> Fri, 02 September 2016 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690F112D1E6 for <>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:23:14 -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 D2bHjt7WZwP0 for <>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D767912D1E4 for <>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z190so132191070qkc.0 for <>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:23:12 -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; bh=43W4Dr3qj19DzUGHEvqRkTzcWWOZUM4MHTF8Ff8eLVY=; b=RdUuGK7TT0ASeXbb7tr46NQHpk5nmTFTmLTsQGptBcV015vUwK49q20zM6q5pVzj/S 98WRf9ut83aFaYvcfulrIZyBdgW+JzTjxyOvOfNvtL53GDmDG0JGf9MgJSrXELbnz/xM OY/Oo6Z5rs04mYba4CmdY0v9p23peAnZpC6z0z+4OCXZi80ZN8h2IM7m4tmUOxlRUmpK pm4zeWGlDSkigPCsgRZysEKIPEa9opPrxxBPHUGNDCufUZP4/oBVNvXo93AcWGCXd0wD RZ6R8QiW1K3eiIJ3GQH98/t1Ja34eC7cJjD7gWABacSEqWYV642M4cGEBrtL4/dfY+8c qYyg==
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; bh=43W4Dr3qj19DzUGHEvqRkTzcWWOZUM4MHTF8Ff8eLVY=; b=OFTlTl32SX+swIqIKVjaVRjn+HYPfMLgoBUdeJB9w45nPfoFNhIKqm2K42TBlphiko 70SEhx3iV2m9b55Bm0MdJ4GotyeZaC3FcUHDjw1KaDOBejHvSSg2QI5HQMgq6CS5MjqY jwQ3hRL3UjEgwY2MtIMLhaJnedIl0vU53b69wb8tCHPbUyt+YBIX1TYDgDDs0fyuJBID Vl8AcpokRJ1tDntIup8moPbS026tzkeM0LE16Gk8jdRPM8b/ymKqKftZgfAfs8nFQAJQ AtndH1XyUvhfBRGiTPoFypc6um1gBMJx6kEtXmVKKGPDTZRo68HzPF6ZUgpigylB2LX3 O0RA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwO9AP1HMQadUxdE00TuHunEaMCPEcMFVjyVCW2+VovQ2bPmfxslwDJHPaPaDN8z26ZPMFwT5ltpi3MjwQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s184mr25732874qkf.154.1472847791979; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: 神明達哉 <>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:23:11 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Rqy9ae4jmAk-Lejd-8K-f4kKtjM
Message-ID: <>
To: Kim Kinnear <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:23:14 -0000

At Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:23:13 -0400,
Kim Kinnear <> 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'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