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

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F8A1293F5; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:41:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.com
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 u1E7rhGEXaNk; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:41:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 236C1128B37; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:41:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1486150898; x=1517686898; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=3qnX0uxaVGDj7YWz9/y8cBqWhIH8QEA1GrVmnGvVEEQ=; b=UeVI+zQEdlZvS+sDSv4jCbZ9MNZlC6kv6nJFa7ABpMOHeTEHSSYOCeRb d6/ygW1vHlNKVtSJLlKIC2DWEPR3M2kc5NdWryZg92VetKjRAbTXvzZgp 1zXtVIT1cgEHZbCrhYpRwg2jKFKLZAxT5y7WpAZOcXwxC3QuSRVIwwujm Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,330,1477983600"; d="scan'208,217";a="355581646"
Received: from unknown (HELO Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.110]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2017 11:41:37 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5800,7501,8428"; a="1307002315"
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 03 Feb 2017 11:41:36 -0800
Received: from [10.64.125.251] (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:41:35 -0800
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: <otroan@employees.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:41:34 -0600
Message-ID: <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_64B0929F-8E95-4727-8DFA-04A31A3FE6A2_="
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01G.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.33) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pdbghjwFa3Z70bnK9jcP-k85ijg>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Stefano Previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 03 Feb 2017 19:41:40 -0000

On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:22, otroan@employees.org 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:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=header+insertion&f_list=ipv6
>
> 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.

Cheers,

pr

[1] The non-humble version includes a reference to RFC 7282, sections 2 
and 3.

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478