IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Saying no (was: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC)

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 28 March 2014 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7464C1A0771; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 25GmKiCwQRef; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9946F1A076C; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92DA1B8079; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8331D190043; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.146.119] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:53:28 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Saying no (was: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC)
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140327234136.GC51988@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:53:26 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <01AC90A3-77E3-4802-82EA-AC6EEC5C11D1@nominum.com>
References: <CF59AE52.16403%wesley.george@twcable.com> <53349FFB.7050108@qti.qualcomm.com> <m2r45nfdwk.wl%randy@psg.com> <20140327233422.GD87785@verdi> <20140327234136.GC51988@mx1.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1722R72F2TDqrdT9A5uayGcrJOc
Cc: IETF Disgust <ietf@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:53:31 -0000

On Mar 27, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections)
> to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the
> WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must.

Not to put words in the responsible AD's mouth, but we do have a process for dealing with this situation.   What it looks like to me is that there is IETF consensus to publish the document, as long as it comes with appropriate caveats about applicability.   Normally in a situation like this, there would be text added to the document as a result of IETF last call comments before the document ever made it to IESG review.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email