Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Fri, 28 March 2014 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.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 037831A063C; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.225
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 Mx8u2wXnqqvU; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1A91A05D1; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.13
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,751,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="245382333"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB04.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.13]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 28 Mar 2014 08:32:37 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.78]) by PRVPEXHUB04.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.13]) with mapi; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:33:45 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:33:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: Ac9KgfWCSGClf001SNW9FNSLRSJTsw==
Message-ID: <CF5ADBBE.167EA%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6nTLaTq_xU9ac8oJ9ReqvVZ0cqI
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, IETF Disgust <ietf@ietf.org>, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, 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 12:33:50 -0000

On 3/27/14, 7:41 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,

Restoring subject line, as my comment is more specific to the draft, not
generally about “saying no”, but the comment made me wonder about the
level of consensus.
I’ll let the chairs speak for themselves as to how they made the
determination that it was acceptable to proceed, and similarly at WG
adoption call, but in looking back at the OpSec list archives to write
this message, I don’t view this as having particularly strong consensus
within the WG to publish. The adoption call [1] was “no objection” and
while I see reviews at adoption call, I see no strong messages of support
*or* opposition. The WGLC was actually completed on version -03, in March
of *2013* [2]. The draft is now version -07, and no new WGLC was done. The
reviews done at WGLC look to me like there were 3 or 4 in total, one of
which (mine) expressed concerns about the document proceeding (the message
is referenced in my previous message), the others mainly focused on the
document’s completeness and accuracy, not whether it was a good or bad
idea.

Like Joel, I’m not willing to go to the wall (I.e. Appeal on process
grounds) to prevent this draft from being published, but I thought that
this information might be helpful in determining how to proceed.

Wes George

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/sHnn52lY8tik9QjVJcyUvGMoE58
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/MU5E-jgzSugN7g2kSX740tinEVk

Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
-----------



This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.