IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 12 September 2013 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 3621E21E8128; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNwmqhiwAfzz; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9871911E8119; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local (c-50-174-18-221.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.174.18.221]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8C68Vso086923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:08:31 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <52315A59.2000301@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:08:25 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
References: <20130819135219.8236.40060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <10526_1378283356_5226EF5C_10526_843_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C511C52CE60@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr3SddZio-vHGHK=5smb94HP58cY05_TGgWQpkS3=Ay8_w@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033645A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0CUzSDv9H1eCUpMRUjBDS2OCkfsfE+S+3J8Z-_6=uVSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzwYrjyobah-oPWD3vwUeUH5XZ7U=Fqof-f28tneS8jAvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_yOaDjrH-5K696YaziZZR+EMxdRCf=JZBW5LZgWS45Q@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF06D0A6F@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr3cgJ-xumsMK3eL3zySGsPqXU9uw4L857bJ0VEGcA5mBQ@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF06D0AF5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <179F53B5-6217-49A0-B5FE-A88011533860@delong.com> <CADnDZ89JMCmQfh2YPPJYTh0PFUgyErJc1WJa2C0Rm9tDgJNEQQ@mail.gmail.com> <5230E46E.60106@bogus.com> <CAKD1Yr3uqtDUJ3xTpat9FzUKQQjMrQacMKkoCoTzEx_GmvBVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3uqtDUJ3xTpat9FzUKQQjMrQacMKkoCoTzEx_GmvBVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:08:32 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 12 Sep 2013 06:08:36 -0000

On 9/11/13 9:39 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com
> <mailto:joelja@bogus.com>> wrote:
> 
>     The queue for dicussion of this point is closed. If there needs to be an
>     appeal on this point now or in the future, then I'll be happy to help
>     someone write it, but I consider that dicussion settled for the purposes
>     of a draft that has already been tested for wg acceptance/wglc/ietf-lc
> 
> 
> To clarify - you're talking only about the discussion on whether this
> draft is in scope? Or are you saying that you consider all discussion of
> this document in this IETF last call settled?

The discussion of whether the IETF, or this working group is a suitable
location.

It was my opinion that the working group should revist the document
itself given what I saw in the last call.

joel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email