Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Suresh Krishnan <> Fri, 03 February 2017 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5951299D3; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 14:09:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkWvPXxF8TZQ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 14:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF111299D1; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 14:09:40 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-c53ff70000000a06-a4-5894b94c9e70
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 43.03.02566.C49B4985; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:09:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:09:34 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
To: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSfkqC7kxOxt1H90G9KbZhJyAgxKFYAkkAgAApWYA=
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 22:09:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E659B882-2261-45B4-BAD6-2C86F5358052"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrHIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgq7/zikRBov3WVjsnjKNzWL3oh5W i2cb57NYvDz7nslictsKNosrV1uYLdbvfsTkwO4x5fdGVo+Dxz4yeixZ8pPJY9HUZ4weXy5/ ZgtgjeKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK6JjylrngQXJFwyS5Bsa1UV2MnBwSAiYSV7+9Ze1i5OIQEljP KHH0ai8rSEJIYBmjxI1uHxCbDahow87PTCC2iICOxJS5O5lBGpgFupkkWp7+AesWFmhjlJh6 4SkjiCMi0M4osa7lB1CGA8ixknh9E6ybRUBF4vf67YwgNq+AvcTqs++ZIVZPZpZ4vnMB2GpO AReJVS8eMYPYjAJiEt9PrQFrZhYQl7j1ZD4TxN0iEg8vnmaDsEUlXj7+xwphK0nMeX0N6rwp QEe8uscMsU1Q4uTMJywTGEVmIZk1C1ndLCR1EEVJEjfarjBC2NoSyxa+BqrhALJ1JCYvRBOG sD+eP8IEYZtKvD76EarGWmLGr4NsELaixJTuh+wLGLlXMXKUFhfk5KYbGW5iBMb8MQk2xx2M e3s9DzEKcDAq8fBuSJoSIcSaWFZcmXuIUQWo9dGG1RcYpVjy8vNSlUR4C78DpXlTEiurUovy 44tKc1KLDzFKc7AoifNeD7kfLiSQnliSmp2aWpBaBJNl4uCUamBcNOXHBsV7upZT+oxqvx7P C5DXSTp8eZLHY8udcnxT31WVTd5sF+6sM0uhrmy/5apA9wb7Rbt/zLrKvzZGOy/OkkekXfb9 /LAZqU6tP6UTNocpzV59K1I56K7XmoqaQ50l6Y+MtCdKTn37MTZm1sZdJtu+MnIFHTgcXzn5 2paabaZfM+5umtauxFKckWioxVxUnAgANuOLlgEDAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, IETF <>, Stefano Previdi <>, "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 22:09:43 -0000

Hi Pete,

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Pete Resnick <> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:22, <> wrote:
> are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ?
> <tp>
> Yes, and I am sure that that is exactly what is intended.
> Then let's encourage people outside of 6man, with other points of view, and other arguments to come forward.
> A re-run of the discussions already had in 6man with the same arguments and the same participants doesn't seem useful.
> For a brief (sic) overview take a look at 672 messages already on the topic:
> <>
> O.
> Might I, as a relatively disinterested observer of this discussion, humbly[1] suggest that pointing the IETF list to a 672-message thread is not a way to avoid re-running the discussion "with the same arguments and the same participants". It would be significantly more useful if you, as chair and the caller of the (apparently rough) consensus summarized the issue, explained what you took the objection to be, and told us what you saw as the replies to those objections that convinced you that WG had properly considered the issue and that there was (rough) WG consensus to go with the text you ended up with. Then folks who think you called it wrong can explain the essential point they think you missed when you made that call. Having the rest of us re-create your evaluation of the consensus by reading 672 messages is, at best, inefficient.

Thanks for the suggestion. Ole will be working on summarizing the WG discussion. I also want to point out the IESG statement on IETF Last Calls at <> which states

"If substantive discussion of a technical comment is needed, it is often appropriate to move that discussion to the WG list, once the comment has been made on the IETF list. "

I think the comment(s) under question fall(s) under that category. For this reason, I would like to loop the 6man WG mailing list into this discussion going forward.