IETF Logo Mail Archive

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)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 27 March 2014 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 DC2AC1A03F4; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 TQlBjPTXtJJI; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AD61A06A8; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (69-165-131-253.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.131.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 181888A031; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:41:42 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:41:37 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Subject: 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)
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140327233422.GD87785@verdi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X47oWfk3ngArEE4qeJrXg-ir2Tw
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Disgust <ietf@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: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:41:46 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email