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)

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 28 March 2014 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.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 7CA321A07F0; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 bpOYgjBJPZxD; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x229.google.com (mail-yh0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD16F1A0468; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f41.google.com with SMTP id v1so4695623yhn.0 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=kZCYJCjtK+lVbbrfzCDk4HGVbwM4toQFJ/RqVSVWku8=; b=NGul5sgBt1lZqiJBP9FuDrYgl6g+Ykbl6asaq5P4j4VSmiQCTL+tZXmJQayJfVNx7q tXu+F+hxRuKry6JMvHEVBPlGuon2WBsoKdr1+SFHUlFrahQRcsza6zCrNF4yKuBE+373 45RMufpuPdMl3ycoXBgdum2njQ9nUEGMkX4pZvqmCt5ZDqAhLupzWOJsaa0auk+G96ZP hJyGeeEFu7X/m4hIbdUIvcUpEOPnBM1Z4ueKeRH6GzI+DvLDp4fg958tw36u7hr364ht L0i/6NzJfw/K6uOfWapiCHsTcmbHYowomSKYztlKBqmdJ+luLbkklHog1j/oaJ7YF3A0 nA2g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.16.161 with SMTP id h21mr8750500yhh.77.1395988985745; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140327234136.GC51988@mx1.yitter.info>
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>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:43:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8--Zd5-oY2nieXJiA6X_ycjzLN2S4KXrMUo8WjxSsxvWw@mail.gmail.com>
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: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2aeda9b170604f5a503cd"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4i7acZ1kTaV3H-wUUlVEQbCZ0YI
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, IETF Disgust <ietf@ietf.org>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
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 06:43:09 -0000

Hi Andrew

I think if the IETF has strong objections with engineering reasons, then it
is already a NO. That document should not even get to IESG. We only need
IESG decision (saying yes or no) when we all in IETF agree with consensus.
All IETF WGs should adapt/amend their document to total IETF consensus
(that is WGs interaction).

AB

On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
> >
> >    The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just
> > say No."
>
> I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document
> until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I
> disagree with that claim.  But if it is true, then we might as well
> give up.  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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <javascript:;>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email