IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 05 August 2015 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E041B2F11 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 03:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 w5oKWkEl1SVP for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 03:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 233FF1B2F05 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 03:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438771152; x=1439980752; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=x/RxOJL8Bz2L4WszHv4zwr0WIqw1grE4RSztZCwlO6Y=; b=hrA0s6TM1IvNwvjJ3Mg/p9whulI9XFli5zhiN4xUG9Ci5c0g2zVHs3pe Zo+ceUB7nx+LEPqFHZjvkfit4KGVgnq9TgFTea0qakP/7I4/KLVhtcgkh gx94BF86n0gwpLsDHaqfmYl5zsAj3eh7OkjEr/zpaX5/I3zf/iEe/J+uy s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AuAwCg5sFV/5JdJa1bgxuBPbx7CYd9AoFAOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEJAEBBHkQAgEIBAE6BzIUEQEBBA4FiC7KVAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLT4E9g0wHgxiBFAWUfwGMVYFHhCOQGINkJoIbJIE+b4JMAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,615,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="175622126"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2015 10:39:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (xch-aln-020.cisco.com [173.36.7.30]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t75AdBx6025728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:39:11 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:39:11 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (173.36.12.78) by xch-aln-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:39:11 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.103]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:39:10 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)
Thread-Index: AdDKIzbWOiOjvN2OTF2YqQPPD6D7kQFMUJKAAAWfSKU=
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:39:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CCEE6F4C-495E-409D-BB7E-5F7BD7C26E0E@cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CB90384@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>, <CAKD1Yr2fTkNZC4gCnVs3McPLZScYbgVfTBfV02WLvvh+3zDa7A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2fTkNZC4gCnVs3McPLZScYbgVfTBfV02WLvvh+3zDa7A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CCEE6F4C495E409DBB7E5F7BD7C26E0Eciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/yHGELIt9yJTHu2v-KxZ9WzbFziQ>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:39:13 -0000

It does not hurt to state your position either way, but yes the results from hum in Prague were pretty clear that WG favored dropping this work.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Aug 4, 2015, at 10:58 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com<mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
Thus, if you do NOT agree with the intended action to mark the document as “dead”, please indicate so and specify why you feel this document is needed and whether to continue as Standards Track or Informational. Please respond on or before August 11th, 2015.

Bernie: to be clear, you're saying that if someone does agree with the action taken in the WG and does not support this document, then no action is required, right?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email