Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Lorenzo Colitti <> Thu, 23 February 2017 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C9E1298CE for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:47:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YXjivK4qBOpt for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BF9129A5A for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k127so20898806vke.0 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:47:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NddmQmOaM/cQ/y1aN7sLR5Vn21qtPHdhEQqai5/aqWM=; b=n04xJMB//JhnozdNMXIi7/UvNjBsnZWe2Z32Bnxh9F/9STYf/tI1WtN9eM9ws7726r pO0DWNF0KN2dUPmlIv8WYk3dIUTvwFaBBVMjFn2ReoNtX+XecnPG+jSlMPU0IroIpCbp 7Y6kck83nRF7/Cr1S3DScghw1r12gI6aoyKqvqhVcAZizDE5a4gm9M25Srq7iPhpMx71 t/7uZzv33H+N92Iun6+gjV2pO43BV/Zk7YfHGxooCRVd8kFPbObmqneOHQRBJcwT5dRl 9uZNlEHDhYGIjC6qSSYN/jzvaGMV2LMnQwAdZRTnfs68XQ5I6FcaTNYhLdxMespCRntT jf4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NddmQmOaM/cQ/y1aN7sLR5Vn21qtPHdhEQqai5/aqWM=; b=QAM5zeoLes3X3PMcGXzqQR5UDZdZ29Gt/wfkOsKxt/e0RL65xcB7qmqJtBFhx8svMI l/u3y4ARLYnOKHKtmlHIK1WNAKFHNvU9Ftw4iKM1mdeFiF40sssXWGsrmDwLKhnpUJRu hxSMJ/9UaTT0VyPfpMaYshKfwihWioIcjCvYLO5M14X8PyUYJcyFz+h6SvL+a5TFm3U6 10OpEOS43SZGrwF/PlP56DySWAQUp2SV0liS6QMS9YUhMQHJ0rlIAUmPkaIZ+A2Dycpa bX98BorjoZOT6G6xDWarQ4IEdp0KiKJvEi3nE3ydS32Z5JI4s3zF7Fuq5QkQJouWrkhO Uwew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kkW7NZA3y6zQ+vHorhz0YfOuga3avYkyJDuRBlUMfoulIxhhziqRQUeSFoqvw1535rClocXQx4IcJTdTV/
X-Received: by with SMTP id q65mr18953309vkd.83.1487861226375; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:47:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:46:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:46:45 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Job Snijders <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143703ae0134b054933aff1
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>, IETF Discussion <>, Peter Hessler <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:47:09 -0000

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Job Snijders <> wrote:

> Comments which imply "you should've been there" are both demeaning
> and derogatory to operators who come to IETF to improve the current
> state of affairs.

My intention was not to imply anything of the sort. I apologize if that was
how it was received. FWIW I wasn't there when the standard was written,

My point was a purely technical one: this is not new text or a new
proposal. It is the current text of the standard, and has been the current
text of the standard for almost 20 years. Opposing this document will
prevent this document from becoming a standard, but it won't prevent that
text from becoming a standard because it is *already* the standard.