Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 28 May 2020 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7E03A0ED2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 AXlWTGSOIcX9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC8FC3A0EDD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jeIEe-0000IHC; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:06:12 +0200
Message-Id: <m1jeIEe-0000IHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 May 2020 21:23:11 +1000 ." <CAO42Z2xDygUXTGwVunGSTMkZGMF8VePrPaXLSAJg14vAJdca5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:06:12 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3ZFS5QxdKNx9g-hekCzr9TPgHS8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:06:27 -0000

>I do not recognise many of the names of people who are objecting to the
>6man working group adopting the CRH draft.

Given that adoption is not a voting system, it should not matter if people
are new. What should matter is the arguments they use a against adoption.

I personally have no opinion on the draft. However I do note that,
for example, having a default router in DHCPv6 has been blocked over the
years because that functionality is already provided by RA. Even 
though there is operator demand for the option and it can provide features
that are hard to realize with RAs.

So I can imagine that some people argue against duplicated efforts on a
similar basis.